On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:48:04 +0530 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > Frankly, I don't think the Board has any business in this discussion > > yet. There are known pain points in providing this (and switching SCMs > > all together), the benefits to Fedora are little to none at the moment, > > and it can be hosted elsewhere. > > As has been indicated before, the board already has a stake in the > discussion having expressed the desire to see Fedora as a better > upstream and having initiated the SCM SIG. So it is not really a The Board didn't start the SCM SIG. > question of whether they should have a role but whether they should have > a more active role in the discussions. Apparently the problem is now > lack of people to do the tasks involved which is ok as long as the > desire is clearly expressed so others can volunteer if they are interested. Lack of people is part of the problem. Lack of physical resources is the other. Hosting this costs real money. The infrastructure team is already trying to battle some space issues at the moment. > > Your insistence at having them declare something one way or another > > seems to be nothing more than whining because you aren't getting your > > way. > > I really have no personal stake on it. So this is a gross mis > characterization and only distracts us from having a conversation about > real issues. Please avoid doing so. It's not a distraction. You're essentially going around the people that have the most knowledge about the necessities involved by trying to invoke the Board to tell them how to do their role. If you want to have a discussion, talk with infrastructure and FESCo. If you want to recruit people to actually work on this, post it to -devel or -devel-announce. At any rate, I'll avoid discussing this with you from now on. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
