On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:45 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/13/2012 12:18 PM, inode0 wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:09 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" >> <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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. FESCo I see as a little bit of a special case. I don't really see much difference between the ambassador group and the docs group and the design group other than that the ambassadors still choose to form a steering committee for governance. Some in the ambassador community think there isn't really a need for the steering committee at all as almost all ambassador governance is provided by regional ambassador groups through their meetings. QA could choose to have a steering committee if it thought that would provide better governance to the QA community. And even though I think FESCo is a special case I think even in that case if we would like FESCo to change any of its rules we should go to FESCo and make the case. All of the governance bodies are open to improving things. John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
