On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel <clydekunkel7734@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/14/2011 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett<mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that >>> fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging >>> group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the >>> body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely >>> packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to >>> a subset of the people under fesco's pervue. >>> >>> There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can >>> add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and >>> just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate >>> gets elected. >>> >>> Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here? >> >> Sounds reasonable to me, is changes to FESCo something that needs to >> be approved by the Board? (adding f-a-b mailing list for >> clarification). >> >> Peter > > Multidisciplinary membership is good. However, please keep a balance in > that no one group is over represented. That wasn't really the point. It was just about who is eligible to be elected. No per group quotas. > Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community? > Should provide a nice balance to the technical side. That does not make sense. Why should a "non-technical member" be in the body that make technical decisions? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
