On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:27:26PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > 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. > My feeling is that it's not reasonable to expect people to not be angsty about it. There are expectations that are not being satisfied and therefore we have internal friction. To use a programming example, aren't you frustrated when people say: <JoeUser> yum's broken! Again! <skvidal> What's it doing? <JoeUser> Telling me that dependencies aren't satisfied with the python-foo-1.0 package. And won't JoeUser be frustrated when he finds out that he needs to report that issue to the python-foo (or worse libfoo that python-foo links against) developers, not you? So I have a problem with the distribution -- who do I report it to? If I want to see it fixed, what body do I need to talk to people about to have it fixed? If I want to help fix it myself, what body to I have to run for in order to have the power to effect change? -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpF88V60hwtM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
