On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:53 +0100, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > > It is also used as a tie-breaker. We had a tie a few weeks ago over > > (*holds breath*) Codeina/Codec Buddy, right there live in IRC, and Paul > > had to make the decision. Not sure how often this happens. Was his > > decision the will of the community just because it potentially aligned > > with a portion of them? Jon is arguing, aiui, "No." > > Maybe I should try and re-phrase as it usually takes me a few tries to > figure out what I'm actually trying to say! > > Simply: is the current system in the spirit of the project? I think > that, possibly, it isn't. > > Thanks for your responses so far though, they've certainly helped my > appreciate aspects of the project that I didn't get before :) I think other people have explained those aspects well, so there's no need for me to reiterate here, other than to say that we should always be willing to question our governance model to make sure that we're proceeding in the best tradition of open source. I find it really hilarious that this issue came up while I had been working on this very issue over the last few weeks. That's what I really *LOVE* about our community though -- there is always someone around to watch over important issues. Hopefully you'll appreciate the announcement that I had been preparing for today. :-) I think it's a nice step forward in the evolution of Fedora's governance. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
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
