On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > When I was a member of the board and we went through a round of > appointments, all appointment candidates were discussed within the > board, and I don't recall there being an appointment that did not have > the full current board approval. That may not be codified in any > written bylaw, but it seemed to be standard practice, and thus little > chance of a renegade FPL stuffing the board with yes-people. > I think you're missing the point by thinking of them as "yes-people". I'm not talking about the FPL putting people in that will agree with everything that they believe but rather certain things that they believe and are essential to the FPL's vision of Fedora. Think back to anything that is controversial... let's say updates vision. If the FPL thinks that Fedora needs to worry more about stability, the FPL has a wide range of candidates who have weighed in on the question asking for more stability in Fedora. People who are primarily known for other work and bring other talents to the table but who have, because the debate was so wide ranging, made clear where they stand. Similarly, if the FPL thinks that Fedora needs to stay closer to its roots, they have a diverse set of candidates to select from as well. -Toshio _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
