On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:35:33 -0700 John Poelstra <poelstra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ...snip... > The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a > leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the > schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development > and our ability to release on time. As the group responsible for > guiding the technical direction of our releases I think this is > something they should be more involved in. I'd be glad to help > gather data they might need to do this and there might be others who > would be willing to help too. I would love to. Can you show me the 28 hour days so I have some extra hours? :) Seriously tho, I think many of the FESCo folks _DO_ stay involved in lots of things, some of them might not be as visible as people think they would be. Or did you mean at some higher level? > I'm suggesting more proactive leadership from FESCo and clear > initiatives to take Fedora to the next level versus only being > responsible for approving features, proven packagers, and policy > matters. > > This is also my vision for the Fedora Board. I think move involvement wherever we can get it great, but I don't think we should try and force people to do X hours of work on Y. Also, if we want to require fesco and/or the board to be more involved and proactive, we should note these requirements for the next election. A possible idea for the next cycle: - Wait until we have the list of approved features. - Divide them up amoung fesco and have a 'point contact' for each that is a fesco member. - Each member is responsible for testing/tracking/talking to the feature owner and getting them what they need to get things done as well as knowing if something is not ready/etc. I don't know how feasible this is given the large list of features however. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
