On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Eric H. Christensen <sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:49:19AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> > * Concern: SIGs can be negated and could mean that change could never come >> > to Fedora as those in power have the choice to not reduce/remove their >> > power. >> >> As I understand this, the worry is that a model where seats are tied to a >> specific "Fedora org chart" could make it hard for new groups to get a >> voice. I think there are number of ways we could deal with that formally, >> including at large seats or even a council position focused on "emerging >> interests". But I'm also not strongly concerned about this as a problem: as >> always, the most power in Fedora comes from working with other people to get >> things done, and the council/board *should* be flexible based on where this >> is happening. (So, yes, let's make sure we make that adaptability part of >> the plan.) > > No, I still have this concern. If the community wanted to, for example, oust GNOME from being the default desktop environment for something else, who from the Desktop WG would support that when everyone in the WG, and most likely the representative on this council, would be a GNOME person. I'm concerned with stagnation and this proposed group being more of a maintainer of status quo instead of branching out to try new things. Your concern is a good one. Using the Desktop WG (which doesn't exist, so I'm assuming you mean Workstation) probably wasn't the greatest example though. Everyone in that WG is not a GNOME person, as has been noted many times over the past few months. Also, if the Workstation WG is not producing a product that is meeting the needs of Fedora, it reports to FESCo and FESCo can dictate that the WG investigate alternatives. If they don't, I would imagine FESCo and the other seats on the council can draft a vote to remove the WG. The council is to be a balanced representation of the people working diligently on the distro. We certainly have a variety of people doing so, and having one seat dedicated to a product WG isn't going to swing the balance in favor of that WG any more than having a seat dedicated to e.g. Infrastructure would mean Infrastructure gets to oust all Ruby stuff in favor of Python. josh _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
