On 06/13/2012 12:18 PM, inode0 wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:09 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/13/2012 11:26 AM, inode0 wrote:
Quite the contrary I think it is obvious that eligible voters and
nominees should not be the same for all groups. You are only I suppose
talking about the Board, FESCo, and FAmSCo but there are other
governance bodies and they are working well enough without any other
group butting into their business.
The only one I'm referring to are the Board, FESCo, and FAmSCo since those
are the only once I'm aware of..
In QA we for example have no need to have a governing body ( hence we dont
have one ) and same thing should apply for other community wide services
like design and releng from my pov view.
Could you elaborate on which other governing bodies exist?
QA has governance too. Whether a group governs itself informally by
consensus in meetings or by organizing a steering committee or by a
self-forming group of interested and skilled contributors like the
packaging committee isn't the important part of governance. But in all
of those cases in Fedora those doing the work make the decisions, not
some other committee from on high.
We are on the same page with this.
When I'm referring to "election committee" and the rules it would set
they would only exist for governing body's that affect the community in
whole not for self governing sub-community like QA hence I only
mentioned the Board, FESCo, and FAmSCo since those are only the ones
that I think fall under that category.
JBG
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
