On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:03 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > 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. > > I think if any group of people within Fedora decided they wanted to > drastically revers the "freedom" stance of the distribution, they would > find themselves shot down by the Fedora Board, and it wouldn't be some > sort of 5-4 RH/community split vote. > > > * 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 :( > > Legal issues are one of the places where Red Hat's sponsorship of Fedora > comes in. Red Hat's lawyers are Fedora's lawyers. There are plusses > and minuses to that arrangement. Part of the nature of the legal work > requires a lot of the interaction to flow through Red Hat people, since > the lawyers need to be very careful about what they say on public > mailing lists. > > > * FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed > > knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations". > > And who's on the packaging committee? Looks to me like it's 4 RH folks > and 5 community folks, and that's only because Toshio just got hired by > Red Hat. The packaging committee is given significant autonomy. I > can't remember an example of the Fedora Board meddling, changing, or > telling the Packaging Committee what to do. Maybe Fesco has a more > contentious relationship with the Packaging committee that I'm not aware > of. Not at all. The FESCo/FPC relationship is hardly contentious. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
