On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:36:05PM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> Having the Board or any other group decide conflicts on an ad-hoc >> basis doesn't scale. I'd predict that would lead to an increasingly >> jerry-rigged final product that works more poorly for everyone. >> Setting direction and focus is what the Board was created to do. It >> may not be possible for every single person to be 100% happy at the >> end of the process, but the goals (in order) should be to establish >> that direction, and then ensure that contributors have freedom to try >> things outside of it. Where there is a conflict, the first goal has >> to win out, just as with our freedom principle for instance. >> > I disagree with some of this. I think that it is exactly the mission of the > Board to decide conflicts on a somewhat ad-hoc (but not arbitrary) basis. > If the people who are doing the work set direction and focus, they are > delineating where they are going to take the people using their product. If > people who are not doing the work set direction and focus, they are setting > forth limitations on what is possible. Legal issues and clarifications of > how to apply free software principles to corner cases are areas where the > Board should be setting forth limitations. Resolving conflicts between two > sets of contributors is also a limitation in that it tells the sides how > they must interact with each other to get back to business (this could be > telling one side they must give in to the other but hopefully the Board > members looking at the problem would be able to find a middle ground in > the specific problem). > > As for my distinction between ad hoc and arbitrary -- I agree that the Board > should be resolving conflicts from general principles (thus, not arbitrary). > But the decisions should be made for actual problems that exist, not by > creating a vision by which your project can be judged when youdeviate from > it. My issue with the target audience and Board created vision ideals are > that the Board is then making decisions based on how it affects the target > audience or whether it fits into the vision they (or a past Board) had for > Fedora. Before reaching that point, I would argue that the Fedora Project > would be better served by addressing how the Board's decision maximises the > ability of the current contributors who are involved to do their work better. > > -Toshio > > _______________________________________________ > advisory-board mailing list > advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board > > I agree completely with Toshio. I don't even have anything to add or comment on. Many thanks Toshio. -AdamM -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
