Fesco membership policies

[drago01]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel
<clydekunkel7734 at cox.net> wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett<mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org>  wrote:
>>> Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that
>>> fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging
>>> group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the
>>> body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely
>>> packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to
>>> a subset of the people under fesco's pervue.
>>>
>>> There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can
>>> add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and
>>> just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate
>>> gets elected.
>>>
>>> Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here?
>>
>> Sounds reasonable to me, is changes to FESCo something that needs to
>> be approved by the Board? (adding f-a-b mailing list for
>> clarification).
>>
>> Peter
>
> Multidisciplinary membership is good.  However, please keep a balance in
> that no one group is over represented.

That wasn't really the point. It was just about who is eligible to be
elected. No per group quotas.

> Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community?
>  Should provide a nice balance to the technical side.

That does not make sense. Why should a "non-technical member" be in
the body that make technical decisions?