On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:34:53PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > I also recall some occassions where it was argued > > > that FESCo should be more involved in the day to day direction, creation > > > and development of the distro and yet the response from some FESCo > > > members was that they already had too much to do and couldn't take on more. > > > > Sure -- but the proper response in an empowered FESCo would be to delegate > > the work that they have out rather than the Board to take it upon > > themselves. > > Delegating implies directed resources that FESCo can delegate *to*. > I don't know that we have that in any real manner. (There's the FES > tickets, but even that's best-effort.) I suppose there's FPC, but there's > very little FESCo can delegate to when it comes to things like 'create > this feature' or 'write this software'. You could say we delegated AutoQA > to the QA group, but I'm not sure that actually made it happen any sooner. > For instance, delegating the Feature approvals to the Feature Wrangler. Delegating approval of the Packaging Guidelines to the FPC. FESCo chooses to take those burdens directly instead of finding ways to push them out to others. They're mature processes now, there's nothing really innovative in either process, it's just refining the process. Both of those systems have people outside of FESCo who drive the processes and are capable of taking the next step in the road towards doing it without FESCo's direct involvement. If the reason that FESCo wants to give its historic powers and responsibilities to the Board is time.... I'm just pointing out that there are things that take up FESCo's time but really don't need to. FESCo can certainly decide that they are happy with that role and that that role fills up its available time. But if that's the case we should be telling people that the Board is the place to have innovative discussions about the future of not just Fedora, the Project, but also Fedora the Distribution. We should be letting the Board make technical decisions. And we should let the people who work on Fedora have a much greater ability to see what the Board does and influence the direction of the Board because it impinges much more on their day-to-day Fedora duties. In the past I have been much more in favor of FESCo getting more power back than simply canonifying the current status of the Board's powers and FESCo's powers because the Board is ill-setup to meet the needs of the community working on technical matters. Conference calls rather than IRC meetings that can be watched concurrently with doing work, doing much of its work in private, being only half elected.... these are all ways in which FESCo is a better vehicle for representing and responding to the needs of the Fedora Developer Community. But if FESCo doesn't want these powers back and the Board is happy to step into that role, then we should simultaneously officially recognize that the Board is the place to take these issues and remedy the issues that make the Board less than ideal ground for those decisions nad discussions to happen. > > Electing people to FESCo in order to make a difference only to have the > > Board telling those decision makers what to do puts everyone under stress > > because of false expectations. You once said that you didn't understand why > > fesco existed since it just seemed like middle management so let's really > > evaluate this -- maybe FESCo is middle management and we have no reason to > > elect them. Or maybe we really do want them to be more than that and > > therefore we should make sure that they have both the power and the > > responsibility to do that. > > Speaking as a FESCo member, I find far more frustration in general > sniping and noise from random (or not-so-random) community members than > from anything the Board does. > I find far more frustration in having people in power talk about noise and sniping than about any of the comments that people without power repeat over and over again. When a community member is rude enough times, you learn to ignore their outbursts and temper tantrums and only read for the actual content that they have (if they generally have any). When a leader of our community decides that they can label members of the community's well-meant messages as sniping and noise, you start to wonder if they're really doing a good job building consensus, getting people with conflicting viewpoints to talk to each other, and most of all, whether they're listening to you or not. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpi2OcJCZgSg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
