On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Max Spevack wrote: > For what it's worth (since we're talking about something 4+ years > old), it was the fact that I wanted the group of folks who were most > knowledgeable about Fedora's technical stuff making the technical > decisions, and that group needed to be different from the Fedora > Board. > > That doesn't mean the Fedora Board, or its individual members, are > never allowed to state an opinion about something technical, or to > make a request, or to try to flesh out an idea and build consensus > around it. But it means that we're trying to build an > engineering/engineering services department (to use the corporate > metaphor) that has its own authority and power. > > The job of Red Hat's board of directors is not to build products and > technologies themselves, but to make sure that the resources and > structure exists for the company to hire a bunch of smart people and > give them the power to build products and technologies (with some > boundaries and oversight). Implicit in all of this is the following: Red Hat pays a bunch of engineers to make sure that technologies related to things like virt, cloud, and other stuff that go into Red Hat Enterprise Linux are being produced, and Fedora is a big part of that process. The Red Hat employees who use Fedora as a vehicle for doing their jobs have a responsibility to play by Fedora's rules. The Fedora community as a standalone entity has a responsibility to make the rules clear (which folks like Poelstra have done a phenomenal job with) and to also recognize in the larger strategy discussions that there are certain things that Red Hat needs to be a part of Fedora. These things aren't secret. In fact, the more clearly articulated they are, the better for everyone involved. --Max _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
