On Aug 17, 2014 5:01 AM, "Haïkel" <hguemar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, FESCo is the actual technical leadership body, it functions but
> sometimes, it had to take decisions that has technical/legal/ethical
> issues requiring the board to step in.
> That's what is preventing Fedora to have a proper strategic vision and
> implementing it.
>
This is what I'm having a hard time understanding. My reading of the above is that the existence of FESCo prevents the Board from making strategic decisions (the alternate view, that the existence of the board prevents FESCo from making strategic decisions, runs counter to what you say later in your response so I discount it). If FESCo's existence is the problem, why doesn't the proposal dissolve FESCo? If FESCo's existence isn't the problem, then what does the quoted paragraph mean?
The reason that the Board doesn't make strategic decisions seems to be that the Board is passive. I still haven't seen concrete explanations of how the proposal will correct this. "Picking the members in a different way" isn't a convincing argument (though it might work).
Please forgive me if I seem argumentative. I want to make sure that I fully understand what's being proposed and that the proposal makes sense and address the root issues. Governance and legal issues are sort of a perverse hobby of mine, so I'm finding discussion and debate on this topic quite enjoyable.
_______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
