On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 07:56 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 13:47 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 06:10 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:35 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 02:33:18PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > So FESCo doesn't really represent the community, because it doesn't > > > > really have a political role, but having the technical leaders elected > > > > nevertheless means that the community is represented in the technical > > > > decision body. > > > > > > Yes, it represents the community in technical matters at the least. > > > > IMO, an elected organ is a bad choice to provide leadership on technical > > matters, because one can not expect an elected member of an organ to be > > technically competent. The domain of "elected organs" is "strategic and > > political decisions", not details. > > Personally, I think that depends on the pool of candidates that are > allowed for such and election. > > > > But > > > you still didn't give me an example of something you feel is "political" > > > in nature, so I have no idea if FESCo would be involved in those things > > > or not. > > > > Some random examples: > > * Decisions on "matter of taste", e.g. decisions on when to exclude a > > package because of its contents (E.g. US folks tend to get nervous about > > matters of "depiction of nudity", Europeans tend to get nervous > > "glorification of violence" (games!), members of non-Western cultures > > might find other topics offensive). > > To my knowledge, we've never excluded a package based on content unless > that content was non-free. We've already had the X-screensaver case :-) More severe cases are only a matter of time. > > * Decisions on "freedom of software". E.g. when to allow non-free > > software and when not (c.f. the non-free firmware case). > > Sure, but that is a higher level issue to be handled by the Board. For > example, it was not a specific debate about whether "firmware for the > frobbitz device" is to be allowed. It was a decision at a higher level > of including firmware in general. And it very much involved legal-ish > discussion, which is sort of a flag that it needs to head up to the > Board. My view is different: Such decisions are mere political. FESCo had not been empowered to draw such decisions and not been equipped with the powers to clean up detail. > > * Decisions on when and how to enforce the "rules of the game". > > You mean adherence to guidelines? That's one point. Other ones would be submission/review policies, upgrade/update policies, AWOL handling, EOL'ing packages, Wiki, setting up deadlines, etc. > Yes, FESCo will do this. > > I used an analogy on IRC the other day that might sum up some of the > Board/FESCo interaction. It's not complete, but it paints a fairly > decent picture of how things should work. The Board decides the higher > level direction of Fedora, and FESCo takes that and implements it. If > the Board were to say "Fedora should be on cell phones", FESCo would > then oversee the adaptations and implementation of that idea. My analogy: The board is the government and FESCo is its administration. Do you see much sense a in a government having an elected Tax Administration? - I don't. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
