On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/16/2013 11:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Dne 14.5.2013 20:46, Josh Boyer napsal(a): >>>>> >>>>> Heck the community did not have the faintest idea which tickets they >>>>> even >>>>> worked ( or did any work at all ) on until I literally request they >>>>> adopted >>>>> the fesco model so we atleast could get a faint idea what was going to >>>>> be >>>>> discussed on those meeting... >>>> >>>> Sounds like working with them has paid off nicely. Maybe you should >>>> do more of that. >>>> >>>>> Let's just continue to cross finger hope that those that have been >>>>> chosen >>>>> <-- yeah that's right not elected but chosen bother to show up to do >>>>> their >>>>> due diligence and reach a quorum. >>>> >>>> The elections are open, and the voting is not rigged. You can be >>>> displeased all you like about who gets elected and what they choose >>>> (or not choose) to look at, but that doesn't make those committees a >>>> farce. >>> >>> >>> This complaint was about FPC and you are unfortunately wrong about that: >>> >>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-April/009068.html >>> >>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-May/001147.html >>> >>> There is nothing like open election to FPC. >> >> Ah. I thought he was referring to FESCo and being hyperbolic. > > > Yet you responded... > > > "Sounds like working with them has paid off nicely. Maybe you should do more > of that." > > Which indicates your realized that I was referring to FPC not FESCO or being > hyperbolic. I though your comment about elections was about FESCo, not FPC. Given your earlier comments about FESCo not doing anything, I thought you were still referencing them with the elections. It was my misunderstanding. I can't explain it any more clearly than that. > Anyway working with them does not make the process going any faster since to > me the FPC and it's concept is the bottleneck vs the open way of > ack/nack/patch approach where you would have more participants and eyes on > the guidelines changes including by the ones that already are on FPC. > > It seem to me that the reason people would not want this is because of their > own lack of faith and trust in the community and Vít is right if we are > going to "hang on" having FPC then the current members should be relieved > from their duty and an open election held for their positions within the > community. Have you suggested an election for the FPC? Looking at Vit's links, I see he asked for an open process and you immediately went to disbanding the FPC. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
