Am Dienstag, den 25.04.2006, 20:01 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm: > 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? [...] Yes, something like this makes sense. But I still think we need at least 13 members because I got the impression in the past months that each "task force" really wants (and maybe needs) a bit guidance or help from at FESCo. And more people can guide more task forces. CU thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
