On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:00:37AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > For instance, delegating the Feature approvals to the Feature Wrangler. > > We could do that in some sort of subcommittee. However, if there is supposed > to be technical review for appropriateness, notification of other people that > might be affected, coordination, and so on, I'm not sure that delegating it > to someone who's primarily process-and-tracking oriented is best. > Ideas: * Have the Feature Wrangler assemble a team * As you say, have a subcommittee that deals with it * Similarly, form a SIG (with a seed committee from FESCo) to deal with it. * Have the Feature Wrangler make decisions on some of the checkpoints -- while the initial submission of the feature is supposed to give fesco a chance to say, no, don't do this at all because it's technically a bad idea, Feature Freeze is intended to be there to ensure the feature has reached testable state which is more about tracking and > > Delegating approval of the Packaging Guidelines to the FPC. > > As long as FPC states they want FESCo to approve them, we'll approve them. > I honestly think that delegating responsiblities to volunteers that *don't* > want those responsiblities is a bad way to build community. YMMV. > The way I look at it, the FPC already has that responsibility. FESCo is largely a rubber stamp step. In the fesco ticket where this came up, one fpc person was for explicit review of all guidelines changes, one was for explicit review of FPC specified changes, and one was for just having the normal post-approval review of things that packagers bring up. We haven't had quorum since to come up with a plan. Does the contrapositive of "as long as FPC states they want FESCo to approve them, we will"? hold true? ie: "if FPC states that they only want FESCo to approve specific guidelines, FESCo will follow FPC's desired workflow"? If not, then there's really no reason for FPC to discuss it.... > > > 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. > > - I should ignore them, esepcially if they don't appear to have any point > - However, if I *do* that, you then wonder 'most of all, whether they're > listening to you or not'? > > Damned if I do, damned if I don't. You haven't left any workable choices. > Normal people on the list should ignore them. -- If your post was about feeling that normal people are listening to the sniping and noise too much then that's my answer. Elected representatives have a duty to listen to people, even when they don't like what's being said. And they have a duty to tease out the facts from those messages. Which, perhaps, shows that elections are a bad idea for Fedora? Or at least parts of Fedora? Perhaps the Board should be 100% elected (to represent the contributors) but FESCo should be structured more like rel-eng, fes, and infrastructure where people show up to do work. Or perhaps *FESCo* should be appointed for their technical expertise. Do you see FESCo's primary role as being representatives of the contributors whose core directive is to empower them to make Fedora? Or do you see FESCo's primary purpose as a body that keeps the distribution on-track, figuring out new ways to produce a high quality distribution? If the former, then I think elections are necessary for FESCo and that for these elected representatives to think of the people who vote for and against them as contributing noise (rather than trying to communicate) is a sign that representation isn't happening. If the latter, then I think that we've pushed too many roles onto FESCo. Elections aren't really all that important to its job. It's not there to represent contributor views, but to make sure that the contributors continue to produce the core Fedora Product. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpyLhihIORUW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
