On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 20:41 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:47:36 -0600 (CST) > Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I've been happy with the board, no need to fix something that isn't > > broken. > > Ok, so I agree with this mostly. But likely for an entirely different > reason. [Snipped observations ...] Must have been mulling on this one for a while, because this poured forth from my brain tonight: http://iquaid.org/2008/01/26/wtf-is-the-fedora-project-board/ I hadn't formulated those arguments specifically that way before, perhaps because it was obvious to me what role the Board fills. It is interesting to me that a counterpart (Josh) in Fedora leadership within the sub-projects/SIGs has a different take on it. Though ... we do appear to draw similar conclusions: > Most of the rest of the items I see the board discuss are generated by > non-board members. The minutes seem to imply the board finds them > interesting, chats about them a bit, and then basically waits for the > originator to do something more with the idea. Which, I suppose, > is often the best form of leadership. Yeah, something like that. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
