On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Well, IMO, Fedora Extras had been a success, Core had largely been a > > continuation of RHEL. > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, > > > > which are not in the community's interest. > > > > > > Very true, but I don't think there is a difference between > > > community and RH here. > > > There is a substantial difference: Community members first must > > propose something, [...] > > I'm not talking theory, I talk out of experience. Prominent community > members have been doing (and still do) just as much backstage talking > as RH people. Anyway this is another story. I know and don't see what would be wrong about it. > So, criticism is OK, it leads to better structures. But this doesn't > mean that the whole structure is bad to start with. The problem is "which structure"? We have been seeing new committees/groups with unclear competences violently taking over certain tasks and violently implementing new hurdles mushrooming almost on a weekly basis. IMO, Fedora leadership needs a structure, needs clearly defined "jobs", "groups", with clearly defined hierarchies, competences and monitoring. > > Or fedora centric: Too many ninjas around. > > Well, you criticise concentration of powers and diversity of powers in > the same paragraph, which one is it? :) No, I am criticizing the fact certain people are concentrating all powers on them and are seemingly "carelessly" using them. This contradicts diversion of powers and renders the thought of "monitoring/supervision" ad-absurdum. > > My initial points remain: I don't see any job left for FESCo and I am > > still seeing too much @RH. > This is a contract that the current community gladly accepted. And RH > is trying to stay out of the radar, empowering the community to do the > right thing as far as possible. Nobody denies giving RH credits for assigning resources etc., but when it comes to leadership, I perceive RH as granting the community the liberty of taking the bits/crumbs RH is not interested in. What RH still doesn't seem to want to accept: To the same extend the community depends on RH, Fedora and RH depend on the community. > This means that at the top of the decision making chain you will have > a majority that is RH, which is the 5/4 ratio in the board. Whatever > follows beneath is secondary and not relevant to the principal parts > of the "community contract". Frankly speaking, I think, most community contributors probably don't care at all what how RH, FESCo etc. do, as long as Fedora's infrastructure and objectives fit into their demands. For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the side-effects of the merger as obstacle. > There is lots to do for the new fesco (and its children groups): It > will just concentrate on solving technical issues, which is what is > was effectively doing anyway. The old fesco would not be able to > decide to include into Extras closed source parts, firmwares or patent > problematic parts. Ask yourself why FESCo couldn't. IMO, largely because nobody enabled them to do so. Or differently: * If FESCo had decided to allow "non-free firmware", they would have been shot by the community and/or RH, like the community/RH did on similar occasions. * FESCo can't decide on legal/patent matters, because they lack the knowledge. One escape would have been RH to provide them with legal advisors, or some volunteers to appear, but ... neither happened :( * FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations". * FESCo could decide on "tactical matters/executive jobs" (e.g. fixing release dates, establishing committees, deciding on mailing lists), because this doesn't require detailed knowledge, ... in many cases this doesn't happen, because other "leaders" overruled them. > Or to rephrase it: What would you think is not possible anymore for > fesco to do, which formerly was? I don't see what they could decide what FAB can't and vice-versa. Both widely overlap. There is one difference: FESCo was supposed to be elected, while FAB is "RH proclaimed". Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
