On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:13:38PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > > In any case, these would be focused on specific goals, and once each > > goal is met, changed for a new position reflecting a new community goal. > > They would be more than just advisory members, but their votes would > > only be binding in areas related to their objectives. > This is probably the big turn in Fedora Project, having project-level > goals and giving ourselves the tools to reach these goals. > It enables us to talk about strategic planning and expect outcomes. > > I'd rather explicitly tie these goals to a 3 releases term, rather than 18 > months. Since schedules may slip, explicit is better than implicit. Some of the goals will be release-focused; for others, a release may be the implementation, but, say, once alpha ships satisfactorily there's really no more to do at a high level; and others may not be connected to the release cycle at all. So, I was thinking more the other way — not 18 months as an exact term, but that we'd reevaluate every six months or a year and see where we stand on each, whether something that was urgent is mostly solved, whether new community goals are not well covered, and so on. 18 months just comes in as the timeframe to be considering when opening up new targets — something that's bigger than the here-and-now, but which also has a tangible result in mind. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
