On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:10:41 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:33 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 17:21 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Hi All! > > > > > > As discussed on this list and during the last two FESCo meetings > we're > > > going to have a election of the members for the next FESCo. > > > > I would like to nominate Toshio Kuratomi - but I'm not going to put > him > > on the wiki page, just encouraging him to self nominate if he wants > the > > commitment ... > Thanks Michael, > > I've been pretty busy lately but democracy doesn't work if there's no > one to vote for (or against). I'm willing to self-nominate and have put > my information on the wiki. > > I noticed there are a lot of other people who haven't self nominated but > have commitment and ideas for Fedora. In the same spirit as Michael I'd > like to encourage a few of them: > > Ignacio Vazquez -- I know you were thinking about this and some of the > potential projects on your blog looked very interesting. > > Josh Boyer -- You have intelligent comments and you're present for all > the meetings anyway :-) > > Michael Schwendt, I see Seth nominated you but there's no indication > you've accepted. If you're not burnt out, it would be good to see you > back. Haven't noticed the Wiki page before. Now I've linked it from the Extras main page in the FESCO section and have put it into CategoryExtras, too. I've marked myself as "contingent" for now, which is a comment I've seen also behind the names of other current FESCO members. (and I won't take the time to count my reviews in bugzilla.fedora.us, btw) I would really like to see many new members in FESCO, to gain experience whether they would do things differently. When I take a look at the Wiki page, which lists the current FESCO members, I see 17 names, but hardly 50% of them come to the meetings. I haven't made it to all meetings either. This is mainly because historically and repeatedly several items on the FESCO schedule page have not been about Fedora Extras, and only a very few members (I call them the "usual suspects") have been able to take action items anyway, like infrastructure tasks. The decision finding process is not accompanied with proper communication and discussion in email at all and is not considering community feedback either. So, not seldomly, when a topic is brought up in a meeting, we are without a quorum, and the initiated discussion doesn't lead to a quick decision either. The topic is put back on schedule and is usually not picked up before the next meeting. We don't even try to reach quorum outside the meetings. The decision finding process should not result in endless discussions (I hate that). But it should be possible to come up with an official FESCO statement, which would be a chance to test FESCO's community acceptance. Which in turn would be very important. In several parts I am not sure how FESCO works. Along the same lines, I'm still not sure what sponsor's obligations are. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
