On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) > Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. I'd like to start > providing that. This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as > well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do > reporting back for various information. > > This is implementation though. All of which is well below the discussion > we're having. This is a perfect of example of a different kind of leadership. Someone sees a problem, decides the problem is worth solving, figures out who wants to solve it, provides them with the wherewithal to make it happen. I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. The default spin keeps coming up so I guess either the board isn't happy with how that is working now or thinks additional guidance is needed by those creating it currently? To help alleviate new user/contributor confusion about what Fedora is? Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? Are there structural problems within the project that this would help? I know I probably sound like I'm set against this business, I really just don't see so much of the upside to it as I think you do and I'd like to really understand what its purpose is intended to be. Being honest, I am concerned it could be used to broaden the board's involvement in areas of the project where delegation of responsibility already seems to exist. John _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
