On 20.05.2009, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I really don't know what the best solution for those issues would be. Better > communication of platforms, goals etc.? Forming factions/parties so we > could vote e.g. for KDE SIG? Direct democracy as practiced in Debian? (But > I'm not sure any of those really works, Debian's votes have often been > total chaos, parties probably don't work for such small committees where > there would be just 1 or 2 members of each party, most likely voting for > their own position rather than the official party line more often than not, > better communication probably doesn't solve the whole problem.) I usually try to stay away from threads like this. With that excuse: I really hope this does not increase bureaucracy. There are hardly any examples where a bureaucratic/democractic governance model would have had any real positive impact on open source projects, quite the contrary. When policies start to matter more than technical questions, you are already lost. Personally, I would rather give FESCo more power. Perhaps this could at least end the shouting contest that Fedora developer mailing list has become. Two cents from a Fedora user, Jukka. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
