On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:42:16PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > <disclaimer> > I have a very primitive understanding of FESCo. Each time I try to > understand it (asking on fedora-devel or searching the wiki) I have come > up empty-handed. I'm not against FESCo, I simply do not understand what > it is supposed to be or do. History is important here. fesco was the head of the Extras section and was in charge of all bits around it. The general Fedora direction was given by the board. As such fesco has been good at making technical decisions. After the merge it also changed its name to reflect that (making "extras" to "engineering"). The current model that Max targets is to document separation of o strategical or large scale political decisions, from the o execution and implementation thereof If you want to compare to other models, maybe the CEO/CTO model could apply next (although still very different). Or maybe the captain/executive officer model would also be comparable. The issue of middle-managemnt you named (but I already trimmed, sorry) is what is being tried to be avoided. Consider the many SIGs/subgroups etc. offsprings of fesco, e.g. fesco could theoretically harbor all of them inside fesco from the authoritative POV, but that would practically lead to chaos. So anything that looks larger and still self-contained is separated off fesco and attached beneath of it. That way the board has only vertical interface and can focus on its core tasks. So in short: The board gives the direction and fesco brings you there. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpMUUxeIbkX6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
