On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Poelcat was asking for examples where the Board interfered with things > that were rightly in fesco's sphere of influence. This got me thinking: Let's forget the past for the moment, and worry about the present. How well articulated is FESCo's *current* spheres of influence? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Steering_Committee "FESCo handles the process of accepting new features, the acceptance of new packaging sponsors, Special Interest Groups (SIGs) and SIG Oversight, the packaging process, handling and enforcement of maintainer issues and other technical matters related to the distribution and its construction." How good is this description? Where do things like Infrastructure, QA, Release Engineering, etc. live in our structure (I use that word purposefully rather than saying "hierarchy")? Is there a place where the leaders (either individuals or leadership committees) of all those different technical sub-sections of Fedora are able to coordinate and communicate? Or is that what the release readiness meetings are used for? If so, is that sufficient? At the end of the year when FESCo members look at each other and say "what kind of year did we have?" how is that answer determined? You can (and should) substitute FESCo in that question for any of Fedora's leadership teams. --Max _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
