On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:11 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:33:33AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > So in short: The board gives the direction and fesco brings you there. > > > > Well, FExtraSCo also was meant to be a counterpart/weight to RH and > > representation of the community against RH. It being democratically > > elected was meant to emphasize its importance and to provide the > > community with means to identify with FESCo, and thereby provide better > > acceptance with their decisions. > > But you have the same in the board itself, one part is nominated and > one part elected. RH always has the last word, but is using it > benevolently. This wasn't different in previous models - fesco could > do as it pleased as long as it stayed in the given framework of the > Fedora mandate/goals which were decided by the board. > Same will be true for the future fesco. Exactly this is the point I want to see changed in near future, and feel to be inevitable to be changed mid-term if Fedora wants to be a success. ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, which are not in the community's interest. > If you like, you could consider that some part of the fesco > non-technical powers it once had have been elevated to the board, and > vice versa the board dropped micro-managing into engineering related > questions. Since you get to vote part of the board the community has > not lost any powers. Well, I'd agree if this FESCo was to replace current FAB or if FAB was "just consulting FESCo". However, as I perceive it, Fedora actually is controlled by FAB, who leaves some "administrational peanuts" to FESCo - Pretty poor, IMO. > > As such I find a democratically FESCo superfluous, because such tasks > > are better performed by technical committees populated with dedicated > > specialists. FESCo isn't such an entity. > > Well, I think there is some little truth in the part that electing two > organs may not be really sane, especially if one is above the > other. But it will be done nonetheless to preserve tradition, > installed legacy and the current community feeling. > > Maybe one day we'll be only voting a board which will be assigning > fesco members. Hmm, my vision of a Fedora government is Fedora to be governed by a "parliament" populated with both RH and community delegates/representatives. How to label such a parliament (be it FAB or FESCo) is secondary. An alternative would be a classical "two chamber model", with e.g. FESCo as "parliament/government" drawing the actual decision and FAB as "second chamber" with veto/objection rights. However, both models would require something like a "constitution" defining detailed procedures. Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
