On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:40:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 25.04.2006, 19:13 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm: > > If fesco feels on some specific issue at hand that it is too small in > > numbers to make a decision it can always escalate to the next larger > > entity to get more opinions like it is happening now. > > I would prefer if nearly all discussion would be on public > places. Yes, that leads to sometimes endlessly discussion like this > [...]. But openness IMHO is more important. I wasn't suggesting on going behind doors, I completely agree on transparency and openness towards the outside of fesco. A model that may keep fesco workload low could be the following: o the community/fesco has some suggestions, these are evaluated by fesco and discussed with the community with a given time cut-off, where fesco has to come to a conclusion. All this happens in public, but if the discussion doesn't reach a consensus you have the time cut-off, where fesco members simply vote on the issue. o When a decision is made to attack something then fesco can decide to create a task force to actually perform the work, e.g. outsource the workload, and move on. o More often than not these task forces will be people from fesco or at least headed by them who should gather forces from the community, e.g. by calling for volunteers on a list this this one. Does that make any sense? It keeps fesco workload down and tries to involve the community as much as possible. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpQYSKv4Y22l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
