On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 09:59 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > I see you've taken this as an US vs THEM stance again. Slightly differently, I think Thorsten is describing general feelings that are out there, not his personal reaction. Jesse -- the seed is in your post: "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 agree that you don't want to slow down progressing on the idea that Bill put forward. But you are basically saying that you are allergic to governance details. In that case, pick someone else to do them. Like them or not, governance details are vital. They break real or perceived cabals. Doesn't matter who the cabals are or where they are paid, etc. Cabal is as cabal does. Your reaction reminds of what happened nine months ago when I suggested we get some proper project management to make Fedora releases go more smoothly. "Oh, no, project management, this is sounding too much like RHEL engineering." Well, no ... but Fedora is not some kid Linux distro produced in spare time by basement hackers. Its success is pretty vital to all of us. Shying away from "ickle project management" and "ucky governance" is shortsighted. And it will get us in trouble nearly every time we do it. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
