Appointment of Board Members.

[Mike McGrath]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:

>
> 3. When the "E" in FESCO stood for "Extras", the responsibilities were crystal clear.  Get a build system together.  Get packaging policy together.  Now that the "E" stands
> for "Engineering", there's higher aspirations, but also more confusion.  I think it's imperative to return to basics and figure out what FESCO's goals are -- and make sure
> that everyone understands them.
>

I'm trending towards disbanding FESCo and disbanding the board.  I don't
think either group has very clearly defined roles and I don't think the
type of people on each group are living up to the potentials of that
group.  I fault our structure for that, not the group members of which I
too was once a member.

I think we should re-think what groups Fedora actually needs and re-define
the roles and groups for those needs.  At the same time lets get rid of
whatever historical cruft comes with FESCo and the board.  Re-think what
we needs in terms of:

	* future planning
	* features wrangling / approval
	* conflict resolution
	* resource allocation/requests (it'd be awesome if someone could
          actually write grants for stuff....)
	* OS design
	* Emerging technologies (not just what goes in but what cruft we
          need to cut out)
	* Project growth
	* Packaging / Integration guidelines

This list could go on and on and on.... and very well might at a FUDCon.
Some of it is already handled (like the packaging committee). Some of the
needs we have could be filled by a person, some a small group of two or
three, or some a larger group.  I'm not totally saying this is a good
idea, but I think it's one worth others besides me thinking about.  And as
discussed on IRC today, it's be good for all of us to look around and see
what we can take from other groups.

	-Mike