I never know where to post on these kinds of threads. ;) I don't have the time or desire to reply to each email and answer it's specific points, but I did want to throw my 2 cents in, so I will just do it here. If there's specific things people would like me to answer, just let me know. So, my thoughts: FESCo and the Board have in the past done some back and forth as to what items should be handled in which body. Have there been cases where one body worked on something perhaps the other should have? Sure. Can we clarify the areas of responsibility or just re-work the way Fedora is governed? We can, but we should figure out what we are trying to accomplish and what any new setup would do better than what we have now before we do, IMHO. I would encourage folks who think the seperation is poorly defined to look at the Board minutes from this very list and list out specific items you think the Board dealt with that should have been dealt with by FESCo (and vise versa :) What powers should be moved back to FESCo? On FPC ratification in FESCo. I think this is a non issue. Even when there were things coming in from FPC to be ratified regularly, it took very little fesco time to deal with. Features on the other hand do take up a lot of time from FESCo. I might be ok delegating this to somewhere else if we can find somewhere else thats willing to do it and will check features carefully. Many times when FESCo is reviewing features we have the people on hand to know a lot about the area the feature is in, so we have info on if it's possible, how far along it is, if the submitter(s) need to work with other groups or what info they need to provide. Ideally if we delegate this I would like to see features still scrutinized for these kinds of things (not just "the process was followed"). On feedback and listening to maintainers: I do in fact read all the devel lists, irc logs, this list, test list, etc. I can't speak to other FESCo folks, but I think many of them do also. I find myself in a quandy with some very vocal people: I know their position from their other 10,000 posts. I disagree with it. If I don't post, it sounds like I am not listening or agree, but if I do post it results in the same rehashed discussion where no one wins, and people unsubscribe from our devel list and find our community unwelcoming. I also find that just a few (2-3) people shouting make it harder to hear feedback from reasonable people. Perhaps we should make sure to encourage those people to make their position clear. Finally, I would like to add that I am happy to hear from anyone in Fedora. Catch me on irc (nirik on freenode) or drop me an email. As to reworking the number of Board people who are elected vs appointed, I think we should not make any changes until: - A clear list of issues with the current setup is written up. - A new governance plan is created that would address/fix/make better those issues - The new plan doesn't create major new issues that anyone can see. Thats not to say that we shouldn't re-evaluate how we are setup, but just that we should look before we leap. ;) Anyhow, I'm sure I have missed things on this thread, will try and followup to any replies to this or talk to folks on irc, etc. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
