On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee >>>> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't >>>> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but >>>> not packaging shouldn't be a leader. >>> >>> That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over >>> those groups, only I don't think they are. >> >>FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a >>add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for >>all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups. > > Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect artwork > or translations or the management of documentation? > > I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire > tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but > they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't > really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation. Well, letting a much broader segment of the Fedora community vote causes a disconnect with me. If they aren't "fit" to run for an open seat why are they "fit" to elect those who are? I think the question of whether being in the packager group is still really relevant is a fair question to reflect on. I'm not suggesting the requirement no longer makes sense, but I haven't really heard a reason why it does yet. I think it is also fair to reflect on the composition of the electorate and whether FAS+1 really makes sense for FESCo elections. John -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
