Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Q: How do we best accomplish this? > > A: Empower people, and get out of their way. > > Well, your have a point, but I don't agree fully. One reasons for it: A > clear infrastructure will actually help getting the community involved. > Otherwise some contributors might say "I did not know where to ask to > get involved, thus I move along to something else" (see the recent > discussion about fedora-desktop on fedora-devel -- that shows the > problem nicely ). That's what I'd like to avoid. There should be mechanisms for people to contribute, pages on the wiki, logs, etc. But I don't see what good mandating that you need a committee, made up of X, Y, or Z does for you. Most of the projects I know about now (art, the SIGs, QA, Infrastrucute) don't really fall into this category. Essentially, communities should provide their own governance. AFAICT, the fedora-desktop thread was just a bunch of mutual namecalling. Maybe I missed something in the noise. Realistically, I want to hear - what are people trying to do that they can't do now? What are they trying to *ask* about getting involved? > > Under them are various subprojects - we have the infrastructure > > project, the docs project, etc. So, what new structures do we > > *need*? > > Hear I to disagree. I think it does not work well if we have to much > projects on the same level if they have to interact a lot (and those two > your porpose have to interact a lot). > > An reasons for my opinion: the communication and "who does foo" between > the Packaging Committee and FESCo sometimes sucked (the recent > "conflicts" issue is a good example). Having something like a FTC > (Fedora Technical Committee) at the top might help as it can say "Either > you work out something until X or we do it, as we and/or group 'b' need > a solution *really soon*". This implies to me that the packaging committee shouldn't have been separated from FESCo in the first place - that's why I put it back together in my proposal. ;) > > 2) Fedora Release Team > > > > Charter: > > - defines the schedule > > - defines the feature list (?) > > - enforces the freezes > > I think that could lead to problems if this group handles the freezes if > all the other repo work falls into the area of group "1" I don't see how it would be that bad - realistically, if people can't work together, we have problems. Bill _______________________________________________ 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
