Adam Williamson wrote:
> How do we decide which SIGs trump which other SIGs if they disagree?
An arbitration committee can decide in what SIG's area the decision falls.
But they should NOT decide the issue (they should ignore entirely, or
ideally not even know, which SIG holds what position), just what SIG gets to
decide. One useful rule of thumb is that global integration concerns should
trump individual packager preferences.
> How are SIGs - groups which are by their very definition based around
> certain specific interests - supposed to set distro-wide policies for
> packaging?
FPC would be considered a SIG in such a SIG-driven world, they'd be the SIG
responsible for distro-wide packaging policies (and they'd decide them on
their own, without FESCo ratification).
> Why are groups which anyone can join (or, alternatively, which can choose
> their membership based on any criteria at all) better qualified to run the
> project than a board, and committees, to which people are elected by vote
> of project members?
Because those are groups where people know each other (at least through the
net, but sometimes also in person) and are used to working together on the
same things, and which are composed of experts in the subject matter. It's
up to the SIGs to ensure that the people who get to make the decisions are
also the ones doing the work (the meritocratic principle), but that's really
the individual SIG's problem, and existing SIGs already have well-working
ways to ensure that.
The election process, on the other hand, is working very badly: only a small
portion of the eligible voters actually casts a vote (and even for those,
there are no stats on how many cast all-0 votes), and several people who did
vote expressed unhappiness about the available candidates (I know I did and
I also know I'm not the only one).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
