On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 01:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 08/17/2010 12:34 AM, seth vidal wrote: > > The ability to make sure the FPL doesn't go off the reservation? > > > > The ability to make sure that crazy people don't end up as FPL and cause > > unmanageable havoc? It's not really that crazy to think of someone > > unbalanced but perhaps charismatic getting elected. > > Lose the veto power entirely and you have much less of that risk. > FESCo doesn't have a single person with a veto power and we are relying > on a fully elected group and things are moving along just fine. If the > board works on a consensus model just like now but without the veto > power, would things really be that different? I can think of a couple of situations where it would be. Remember 'The INCIDENT'? > >> What would Red Hat lose by giving up on the veto power? The > >> benefit to losing the power is that others vendors and the volunteer > >> community would feel more in control. > > Oh cmon... other vendors? Really? > > Others vendors are participating within Fedora already. Multi vendor > open source communities are healthier than single vendor dominated ones. <eyeroll> -sv _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
