On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
So to learn this.. make sure you have a strong leadership that the population feels they have needed checks on. How you accomplish this (bi-cameral parliament, king for the year, etc) is up to the FAB to decide.
Without hijacking the thread completely, I will say that IMHO we do this pretty well.
FPB makes the "hard calls" and delegates some of that down to other committees, which themselves have leaders -- FAB provides the oversight and checks and kicks in the ass. Community at large has no fear of complaining when it sees things it doesn't like.
Could I see Fedora being even less centralized than it is and still having reasonably-paced decision making? Not really.
Could I see Fedora being more centralized in its decision making? I suppose, but I don't know that it *needs* to be. I think the level of governance is more or less right as it is. We try to let the smartest people who are qualified to make the decisions do so.
Especially once some of the questions in today's other main thread (FESCO, Packaging, EPEL) are sorted out.
And the FPB is set to rotate about 50% of its seats following F7, which also brings in some fresh leadership and puts current "strong leaders" back into the community, where I'm sure they will continue to lead.
My .02 -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
