On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 07:09:47AM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: >> Toshio Kuratomi said the following on 08/13/2010 01:48 PM Pacific Time: >>> Notes: >>> * In the Max Spevack era, the Board was pushed away from making decisions >>> for two reasons: 1) FESCo was deemed to be the body that understood the >>> technical issues at hand and therefore the body that should make most of >>> the decisions regarding Fedora. 2) The Board was not all elected and >>> therefore didn't have as much of a "mandate from the people". In the Paul >>> Frields era, the Board started to make many more decisions. I don't think >>> that's necessarily a good thing as they've trampled all over reason #1 >>> above but being fully elected would help to alleviate reason #2. >> >> I don't recall things going down this way. Please name some concrete >> examples of this "trampling" so we can be discussing the same thing. >> > The first example of it that I can think of was at the transition between > the Max Spevack and Paul Frields eras with Codeina. Here's some pointers > from the middle to mid-end of that: > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2008-March/005032.html > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2008-March/005054.html I don't understand what these two emails are meant to illustrate. Codeina was an open issue around the time we transitioned the FPL role from me to Paul. I recall one of the first things that Paul worked on with his FPL hat on was to address that problem. That's what I see when I re-read his email. What I see when I re-read mine is me doing my best to apologize for a situation that I felt ultimately responsible for, and to be accountable in public, especially because other people were cleaning up an issue that carried over from my "watch", so to speak. --Max _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
