Ralf Corsepius wrote:
OK, in verbose:
rel-eng has broken FE's workflow model into something I consider
counter-productive and unusable to community contributors.
Do you mean rolling updates vs freeze and release or something else?
rel-eng's deeds are throwing away all the points having made FE
attractive.
Think of fixing problems in infrastructure as bug reporting exercises.
If I filed a bug report as vague as these statements against of the
packages maintained by you, would you be able to fix this issue?
But that's how the board will work, 4 people get elected (community)
and 5 appointed from RH. You get the mix you mention.
Well, I must have missed this.
It has been that way right from the start and several people have told
you this in discussions before on and
It's answers like these which lets appear Fedora-leadership@RH as they
currently are perceived.
Pointing out that you have ignored what has been told to you in several
discussions isn't a matter of perception but facts.
offlist.
Nobody did.
I certainly did tell you that Fedora Board has non-RH folks possibly
more than once. The underlying theme of Red Hat vs non-RH ignores the
fact that employer doesn't decide community focus. Individual people do.
Second, it ignores the fact that every governing body within Fedora has
non-RH folks in it and if Red Hat sees individual Fedora contributors
making a good difference it probably will want to hire them. That
doesn't suddenly make them a non community member.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
