On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 03.06.2007 09:38, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 08:48 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > >> Further: I don't blame the current situation is FESCo's fault (¹,²) > > It's definitely not their fault alone, but there can't be any doubt they > > share their part of guilt. > > Well, we all likely share a part. Right, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it, we are all imperfect humans and we all make mistakes and oversights. > We all could have yelled louder if we > wanted; it might have changed some things here and there. But I for one > kept mostly quiet until now as I was willing to accept some bumpy time > to get the merge done for F7. But F7 is out now, so now we need to get > things in a better shape again. > > I'm actually *wondering* if we should have a "spare time packagers > committee" (or something like that) that represents the packagers that > do their package maintenance work in their spare time. They afaics > sometimes simply don't have the time and the power to get their opinion > heard without investing even more of their rare spare time. Well, as I repeated said: I consider FESCo to be some sort of parliament constituting of representatives and not to be a "board of directors" or an administration. > > One aspect: They allowed things to happen the way they happened and did > > not intervene when things began to derail. > > > > A question closely related to this: Would have FESCo been in a position > > to intervene? I am inclined to think no. > > I'm inclined to think "yes, if they wanted to". ... the later half is the interesting part: I think, executive and legislative organs are too closely linked in FESCo. In other words, I think, current FESCo is not able to "monitor", because the "persons to monitor" are largely identical to "those to be monitored". > > The real decisions are taken elsewhere. Let me try to clarify: I am not referring to "technical committees" working out details (under a Fedora Governments direction/supervision), I am referring to non-technical, strategic decisions. Trying to project this on real world governments: * It's a government's job to decide upon "tax increases", not the "tax authorities". It's the tax authorities' job to work out (technical) details and the government's job to ratify them. * It's the government's job to decide upon "immigration regulations", not the "immigration office's". It's the "immigration offices' job to work out details and the government's job to ratify them. > Well, that's why I'm urging the board to clarify the work areas for the > Board and FESCo. > That is lingering around for months now (see > fab-archives) and it seems everyone has different expectations in that > area. I _did_ notice your posting and was waiting for FAB's and FESCO's voices. Their (non-) reaction to me is a strong indication for my claims above to be true. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
