On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 15:23 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 02:55:05PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 14:34 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > To me, it seems that FESCo has been giving > > > up a lot of its duties, responsibilities, and powers and the Board has been > > > absorbing them. > > > > > > I think much of that is members of the fedora community (red > > hat-employed and not red hat employed) doing the same thing. > > > > they see fesco > > they see fesco make a decision they disagree with > > they see the board override a decision fesco makes > > they conclude there is no point in talking to fesco > > > > > > this happens in other groups with powers that are only in place if the > > board backs them. For example the hall-monitors. When the 2nd-guessing > > started of them and the board didn't back the decisions there the group > > fell apart. > > > > that is what it is. > > > I agree - but I also see it as a problem. We should either: > > 1) Give the power back to fesco. Board says, that's fesco's call, not mine. > > or > > 2) Why bother having two elected committees? Merge the Board and FESCo and > work on what the merged body should look like in terms of transparency, > composition, and delegation. > > If we're going to let devaluation of fesco's power occur we should make that > decision consciously. > or, you know, not and not be angsty about it. a process evolves and devolves. It's okay to let it slide back and forth as it changes and as the players in the process change. -sv _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
