On 04/02/2014 06:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The people who have proposed these changes are backed by elected bodies.
Well both the individuals that are driving this effort are part of FESCo and why the board is backing this up beats me and why did those elect body not allow for a counter proposal being made to .next and WG?
If the community agrees that this is a bad move, why did we not elect people who disagree with .next in the most recently elections?
Why aren't empty votes or none votes counted as people not being happy with candidates and how representive of the entire community is that voting since the last time I checked only fraction was voting?
The evidence simply isn't on your side here.
Be it as it may what you believe about evidence since what played part of me resigned from the serverWG was that I had been contacted by several maintainers ( which some where Red Hat employees ) which expressed concerns if I was going to be responsible for signing them up for maintenance work they were not willing to do, which I was not what I was about to do and was also the reason I emphazied so much on the baseWG meetings that Phillip would be in contact with every affected maintainer of the components they had agreed upon to keep to keep them in the loop and gather their feedback.
Why they contacted me I honestly have no idea and was quite surprised it's not like I'm the popular kid on the block but then again I was equally surprised when Stephen selected me to be on the serverWG or when I got asked to run for FESCo
Why those individuals have not stepped forward to back me up I can only speculate about as much as you can but ultimately it's their chose.
JBG _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
