Greg Dekoenigsberg schrieb: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> Why not send that signal through an open election? >> I think that's not enough for now as we did quite bad with setting the >> sign "we seriously want the community involved in Fedora" in the past years. > Then, imho, we've got the same problem in reverse. Saying that "50% of > the F-star board is guaranteed to be non-RH" is every bit as bad as saying > that "50% of the F-star board is guaranteed to be RH." Sure. I'm fine with that. Anyway, it seems more and more people come out of their holes that don't like the "50% for the community" idea and only a small number of people back it. So maybe let's forget about it, it was just and idea. Forgetting about it IMHO is acceptable as long as both the community and RH still have each one representative that can veto something (and thus moe the decision to the board). CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
