On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Haïkel <hguemar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2014-09-26 21:48 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> I think this is where this breaks down. If the Council and FPL is >> going to make strategic changes that impact the entire community then >> they cannot decide those things without a lot of discussion. Doing >> that in a limited attendance setting like Flock doesn't seem >> appropriate, even if they were presented beforehand. >> >> Let's not repeat past mistakes. Decisions are not made at Flock/FUDCon. >> > > we agree on that part, Flock is the place to discuss things, not deciding them. > >> Except that isn't what happens at Flock. Ideas are generated or >> discussed at Flock, and then they are presented to the community for >> discussion and refinement. Take this entire Board rework proposal for >> example. We're still working through it almost 2 months later and >> unless magic happens it will probably be another month before we >> actually officially change things. (Frankly, I'm hoping for magic). >> >> So if you align things with Flock, you're still looking at 15 months >> minimum before we reach consensus. 18 months for goal seats is not >> unreasonable. >> > > Well, you're right scheduling things in a distributed community is hard. > Then, do we all agree that agree that goal definition should happen > after discussions at flock ? I'd agree that Flock is a valuable piece of the discussion to be sure. > What I fear with a totally disconnected schedule, is that goals are > discussed in even smaller circles than Flock. > For the record, according fedmsg, we had 1.4k active contributors > (using a liberal definition of active), and Flock gathers 250 people > so approximatively 1/5 of active contributors are there. > There isn't a best place for these kind of discussions for us. I don't think forcing seat terms to be aligned with a conference is going to benefit the goals being driven by those seats. Some of them may be multi-year goals. I do think evaluating the goals at a conference is a great idea, but that is orthogonal to how long we think the goal is going to take and how long a seat is present for it. > I'm sorry that it may sounds like nitpicking -overall, I think the > proposal is *good*- but as soon as it will be submitted to public > criticism, they'll be harsher than I am. I'm confused. How much more public do you expect this to be? It's already on the public list where we discuss board things. josh _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
