On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 02:07:37PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
My point is: I sense not a single trace of democracy at RH and I sense
not a trace of supervision/monitoring/control of the community over the
boards inaugurated by RH.
I need to chime in here a little bit.
I don't quite understand what the second part of your sentance means, but
as to the first point -- seriously? You see *not a single trace* of
democracy in the way Red Hat handles Fedora?
How can you say that when Fedora Extras itself is a major piece of that
democracy? Thorsten is your chair -- he's not a Red Hat employee. How
can you say that when Red Hat is adopting *internally* the packaging
guidelines that came out of the Fedora Extras work? You feel like Extras
doesn't have influence? You feel like FESCO (which drives Extras) doesn't
make an impact or influence the way things are done?
Some examples:
* RH has killed the FF, without even informing the community in advance.
(Now some projects are complaining about lack of funding - Could it be
RH missed the aspect of using a "foundation as means of fundraising?)
Due respect Josh, but just because we didn't inform *you* ahead of time
doesn't mean that the decision was made entirely within Red Hat's walls.
A number of non-Red Hat folks knew about the decision ahead of time, and
had a hand in helping us to come up with the reasoning and messaging
around why FF didn't make sense, and why the current Board model is a
superior choice.
Did you read the message that we sent out discussing the reasons why the
Foundation decision wasn't compelling? Fundraising was specifically
addressed in there.
Furthermore, there was a very frank conversation about the way Fedora *is*
governed, and the main point out of that is that the Fedora Project Board
is set up *purposely* to have a very strong representation of people who
don't work at Red Hat. This is the *reality* of what we are doing right
now. The Fedora Project Board is empowered to make decisions about what
Fedora does. A significant amount of that Board's membership is not
@redhat.com -- and I promise you that I have no problem with seeing that
balance shift more toward the community over time, if that is what is
clearly the best for Fedora.
What does that have to do with FESCO?
* RH has proclaimed the FPB and has inaugurated the persons at their own
will without consulting nor informing the community. They selecting a
person as head we never saw in any Fedora Project before nor without
thinking about this organs interaction with other Fedora Projects.
(In politics such an incident would be called "palace revolution")
As I said above, parts of the community were consulted. The community is
consulted now in everything the Board does. The actions of the board are
transparent, and everyone has a direct line to contact and influence the
work that the Board is doing.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
In response to your criticism of me as being the Chair of the FPB without
having been active in Fedora previously: It's true that I wasn't directly
involved in the Fedora side of Red Hat prior to beginning in my current
job, but don't base your opinion of me solely on that. If you have
concerns and issues with the way I'm handling Fedora, write the Board and
complain. Write to boss and convince him that I should be replaced.
Make a compelling argument for why things are wrong and how they should be
instead and your voice will be heard.
My job isn't to be a dictator over Fedora. My job is to be Fedora's
biggest advocate within Red Hat, to set Fedora up as much as possible for
community decision making and empowerment, and to constantly remind the
rest of Red Hat of the immense value of open source methods, community
involvement, etc.
I get a paycheck from Red Hat. But I work for Fedora. If the larger
powers that be inside of Red Hat decide that Fedora isn't important, then
I'll be the one yelling the loudest, and most publicly that they are
wrong, and I'll be first in line to submit my resignation.
But you know what? That isn't going to happen. The very fact that the
position (that I currently have) was formalized within Red Hat underscores
Red Hat's desire to see Fedora be a success.
We're talking about how we, the Extras community, want to govern
ourselves. Leave Red Hat out of this discussion please.
I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. Someone asked the
Board: "Extras is ready to shuffle up its leadership a bit. Do you guys
need/want to have a say in that?"
Look at the first response: it was me say "Nope, you guys do your own
thing. And the Board is going to learn from you."
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-April/msg00185.html
So tell me: where's the lack of democracy? Where's the iron fist? What
are you *actually* angry about?
Respectfully,
Max
--
Max Spevack
+ gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/~mspevack/mspevack.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
