Jesse Keating schrieb: > On Friday 13 April 2007 01:05:05 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> I'd further would like to see more informations what the Release Team is >> (number of people and names), how it is constituted (approved, elected, >> mixed?), who's responsible (chairmen?) and what its works areas exactly >> are (what remains FESCo work and what will the Release Team take care >> of? and when does the Board get into the game?). > > It's things like this that start to frustrate me. Sure it's neat information > to have, but for the sake of getting a few people together to get some work > done, I really don't want to have to go through the headache of creating all > this red tape and governance. Now, I don't think that some of this is bad to > have, it just makes the barrier of entry to having a group of people work on > something pretty daunting. It's part of the reason why I _haven't_ yet > created the sig page for the release team, thinking about this crud gives me > a headache. I can feel with you and understand your point. But that *IMHO* the overhead you have to live with if you want to get the community involved, as they afaics want to have a chance to influence stuff if they spend lots of their time working on that stuff (Fedora in this case). But that overhead IMHO worth the trouble *if you do it right*, because the community then will do work that you otherwise would have to do. But if you don't do it right it can easily fail and you have some overhead, but get nearly nothing back, or even worse, you have to continue to do all the work. Further: One of the reasons for merging Core and Extras afaics (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the community showed well what they can do if you let them -- that includes the working structures (e.g. governance modell) . And during the public merge discussions it seemed to me that it was important for some of the important people that FESCo stays to exist as it worked well and the community felt represented by it. But it seems to me we are working in the opposite direction: FESCo still exists, but it seems to me it is less important than before. And there was a lot of chaos in the past months -- the hectic ACL implementation for example. The merge reviews and the rules around it (e.g. blocker bugs vs. flags). Lots of other minor stuff. I first said "okay, things are new to everyone and everything will work out to something good somehow" but I have reached the point where it seemed to me that things are not improving; in fact they were getting worse. Some people told me in private they were unhappy and concerned as well. And that why I'm pressing on this whole "governance" issues ATM, to make sure the community still feels well involved and represented. Getting that roughly right from the start of the merge imho is quite important, as it will influence Fedora in the long term quite heavily. Sorry if that's creating a headache for you. CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
