2011/2/20 Larry Cafiero <larry.cafiero(a)gmail.com>:
As a preface, this discussion took place during the open floor and no
decisions were made on the issue. I cannot speak for the rest of FAmSCo, but
I think we're still digesting and distilling the proposal, and subsequent
discussion, into some sort of action.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM, inode0 <inode0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > 13:35:30 <igorps> It is a good discussion, but somehow we also need
> > opinion from the
> > Board members
> Why? What does the Board have to do with the budget?
I don't think the board has anything to do with budget, and while I don't
want to speak for Igor, I believe the "opinion" in question is whether we
need some sort of authority from the Board to approve a decision by FAmSCo
to expand FAmSCo's scope to include non-ambassador funding -- if that's what
we choose to pursue (and again, this discussion took place during Open
Floor, at which time we were just getting a sense of how we, as a group,
wanted to proceed). The Board just might want to have is some say in making
an approval on this decision because, unless you can point it out, I can't
find any precedent or authority that FAmSCo can make the decision to give
itself this power on its own. If we are endowed with the power to make this
kind of financial decision unilaterally, then I think that can be arranged.
And I think FAmSCo should authorize the purchase of a Lear jet for every
member, while we're at it, if we're allowed to make such decisions on our
own. Obviously you can see where the Board might have a problem with that.
Speaking only for myself, I think that Board shouldn't be a blocker to
getting things done. If FAmSCo wants to make something happen to make
things better in Fedora they should just make it happen. Obviously
that means that you'd need to get Max/CommArch approval, but I don't
think he'd say no to any reasonably well thought out proposal. It
saddens me that we have regressed into this 'needing permission'
mentality. There are a few things that obviously need someone's
permission (using the Fedora trademarks, bundling libraries in
packages, approving features, etc), and those are fairly well
documented. But generally, people in Fedora should assume that
provided that they are doing things transparently and working to
improve Fedora that they have all the blessing they need to get things
done. The Board (and FESCo and any other group that comes to mind),
IMO has no standing on this matter. We're essentially talking about
CommArch's budget, which is not within the Board's purview. If the
Board, or individual members (as any other community member) have
input or wisdom they can offer it, but you shouldn't feel beholden to
them for blessing.
> > 13:35:38 <liknus> obviously we can choose to accept or not a role (or
> > even take part in
> > forming it)
> > 13:36:03 <liknus> but right now we do *not* have a proposal officially
> > made (board, some
> > SCo, a person etc)
> I made something of a proposal as a community member, David Nalley
> previously made a proposal as well.
I think David's proposal was far more clear, and it's somewhat unfortunate
that David's wasn't acted upon by the last FAmSCo group. I'd be interested
to know in more detail why it didn't fly and what hang-ups we can avoid
I think part of it was end-of-term fatigue - we discussed this
literally weeks before the elections. I am sad to say we (I really
mean 'I') waited that long to do anything, particularly after having
discussed it at length in May.
> Even though a proposal from FAmSCo will not agree with my proposal I
> welcome your initiative to make a more formal statement of your
> willingness to accept an expanded role if that is what you want to do.
> Getting options on the table will lead to this getting resolved sooner
> one way or another and until it is resolved we can't all get behind
> whatever decision we end up with to move ahead constructively.
> > 13:38:46 <liknus> yn1v, what is the alternative ? To elect a new body?
> > (besides FAmSCo is
> > the body that is elected by most members in Fedora)
> I guess you did not read the proposal I made that began this discussion.
I think he did. I think we all did -- all 742 words. To be honest, I thought
it was very hard to follow, and English is my first language. In addition, I
thought it was contradictory in places, which I find to be hurdles moreso
than roadblocks (see below).
> > 13:40:30 <igorps> liknus: maybe people are not just aware of board tasks
> If the board is making budget decisions people certainly are not aware of
Again, I don't want to speak for Igor, but what I think is in question here,
or at least how I took this, is that the "tasks" of the board in question,
again, is having the authority to check off on expanding the scope of FAmSCo
to allow it to fund non-ambassador projects.
I know there is this desire for chain-of-command stuff, formal
assignment of duties, and occasionally everyone lapses into that
thinking. That's not the way Fedora operates. Additionally, currently
no one is doing this work. If there was a body that was doing it, and
you were muscling in, that would be one thing, but this is a void that
John has identified (repeatedly). No one is doing this work. You
wouldn't seek FESCo or Board approval to package new software, or a
new desktop environment, why would you ask for permission to do
something no one else is currently doing within Fedora. IF FAmSCo
feels this is something they should tackle, and they get the other
concerned party's (Max/CommArch) consent, then they should just go do
I'd echo the same thing to John - John, if you feel that an
external-to-famsco/ambassadors body is the right way to go, start
working towards that. That conversation could start on this list by
asking Max to discuss this publicly and transparently, see what his
feelings are, and how to proceed. I suspect based on his previous
posts to f-a-b, this list, and conversation at FADNA that Max likely
doesn't care who the body is, just would like someone to take
/me notes again that I speak only for myself