On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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. Silence does not equal agreement. I've been quite busy and haven't found the time to writeup a response to Thorsten's email. His is an email that requires a bit more than a few sentences, so I want to write a response correctly. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
