On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:04:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 06:22 -0400, Sam Folk-Williams wrote: > > > To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want > > to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them. > > > Not sure about voting. Ambassadors and FESCo have only started to vote > on their positions this past year after having a while to create a sense > of what roles the elected body is supposed to perform. These positions > are also different than FESCo and Ambassadors in that it isn't an > election of a body of people -- it's an election to individual > positions. This is the difference between elections for the city > council and elections for sheriff, treasurer, and mayor. For these > specialized positions you want someone who is familiar with the issues > that will be facing them in that job as they will be the go-to person > when problems crop up in those areas. > > Which isn't to say that voters couldn't do a good job of picking people > with the right skills and knowledge here either. But I think we lack > one other criteria for good elections: voters. Currently we only have > 31 people listed in the sysadmin groups so it's somewhat silly to hold > elections for seven positions at this point. I think a simple > confirmation/discussion will better serve us at this time. Prior to filling positions with people and titles, it would be better to define the obligations, responsibilities, and the work-flow for each of these positions. Like "What exactly does the Build System/Package Manager [X] do? How does he differ from other contributors within the Infrastructure Group? What do you--i.e. a contributor or person within the Infrastructure Group--need him for instead of the list?" [X] insert other position titles here Especially for people outside the Infrastructure Group or even outside the Fedora Project, such information about the structure of parts of the project is important.
