On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:01:40 -0500, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Good point. (-: At least he did mention some sort of concensus reached > by redhat folk, even though it's not documented anywhere. I'm going to beat a dead horse for a second, to make a point. He said there was discussion, he did not say consensous had been reached in the discussion which is a subtle but important distinction. If the current draft of fedora leadership page is to be believed and censensous is to be the way that decisions are made by leadership, its going to be vitally important that consensous decisions that are agreed on get written down in a formalized way to distinquish the discussion that continue to be open-ended and have not come to an agreed apun resolution. Consensous doesn't mean unanimous, it implies compromise so depending on which discussion participant you ask, you can get a very different view of where an on-going discussion is leaning. So its a very good idea to make delibrate effort to write down what is agreed on as policy ( with references back to the discussion that was held if possible) compiled all in one location seperate from the discussion forum...even trivial matters like the agreed on definition of open source. This is especially important when the small consensous making group is discussion/making policy that a larger group is going to be trying to interpret and abide by, as is the case of the larger community developer pool who will be using fedora extras to maintain packages in. If leadership has to continually re-clarify the consensous decision to new community members who disagree with veteran community members, thats a waste of leaderships valuable time and prevents community from establishing its own mentoring processes of new volunteers. -jef"join me on the fedora-royal-degrees mailinglist to see what policy decisions i make everyday concerning what color of the sky I will allow"spaleta
