On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:28 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > 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? > democracy != community. That said, I don't know that a lack of democracy hurts us right now. In the past Red Hat was not as engaged with the community and democracy seemed like the route to more openness. Today, Fedora is much more involved in allowing community into the decision making process. I don't think mandating community voting has the same pressure as before. OTOH, the community-orientation of today's Red Hat may change in the future. If that happens, we'd be better off having codified some sort of democratic model of decision making today so that it doesn't have as much of an impact later. So if we're building a Fedora that we want to still be a community driven distribution ten years from now, establishing voting procedures as the method of selecting our leaders is very important. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
