On 07/17/2010 04:27 AM, Marcel Rieux wrote: > > > Which premise is false? That the board doesn't need to have to > comprise a majority of RH employees? Does this change anything to the > fact that "Red Hat can steer Fedora any way it wants", mainly that the > Fedora Project Leader is appointed by Red Hat and has veto power? FPL has in the entirely history of the project never exercised that veto power and it is carefully defined to in the wiki as such. The majority of the board is elected which was a factual inaccuracy in what you said and works on the basis of consensus. As a former board myself, Red Hat has never told me to do anything specifically in the Fedora Board and the culture of Red Hat which is typically engineer driven, allows independent contributors to be valued as such instead of just employees in a company. When Board discussed issues, typical disagreements have been voiced between employees themselves. In other words, people are not drones. Governance in Fedora is rather light weight and board in particular does not interfere in day to day routine work which is led by contributors. The large majority of package maintainers, about 80% IIRC are volunteers and FESCo which is the engineering body is fully elected as well. If Red Hat exercised veto power and made a decision, the large majority of contributors do not agree with, they can fork and all of Fedora including infrastructure code is free and open as per policy to allow that freedom. So in effect, the situation isn't quite the black and white picture you try to portray. Red Hat does have a strong say in certain aspects of Fedora including legal matters because Red Hat carries that burden as the legal entity behind Fedora and it's primary sponsor. Rahul -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
