On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:23 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 23:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the > > schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem > > unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is > > it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them? > > FESCo generally +1 It should take more than just one person complaining to get the FPB involved (as a body) in these decisions. Obviously, Board members may be involved as contributors in the decision. What I'm saying is, it shouldn't be possible to do an end-run[1] around FESCo, unless there is something egregious happening. To prevent that, we may want an informal "Ombudsman clause". Someone from the community can contact an FPB member directly, specify the egregiousness, and that Board member can either take it to the rest of the Board, or talk to the FESCo chair about the situation. Objective -- avoid wasteful and silly fights. :) - Karsten [1] Idiomatic phrase from American football, meaning to skip the usual processes and go around a blocking entity. -- Karsten Wade, 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
