11:33 p.m.
Election season is here again in Fedora! Nominations are now open for
the five open seats on FESCo. The following members have terms
expiring this cycle:
* Kevin Fenzi
* Dennis Gilmore
* Bill Nottingham
* Brian Pepple
* David Woodhouse
Any interested Fedora packager may run for FESCo, the only requirement
is membership in the 'packager' group in FAS. Especially noteworthy
is that 'provenpackager' or sponsor status is not required - this
keeps the bar low for new members.
Nominations are open through 29 May 09 at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations.
More general information about the election process can be found at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections
_______________________________________________
Fedora-devel-announce mailing list
Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce
9:04 a.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Election season is here again in Fedora! Nominations are now open
for
the five open seats on FESCo. The following members have terms
expiring this cycle:
* Kevin Fenzi
* Dennis Gilmore
* Bill Nottingham
* Brian Pepple
* David Woodhouse
Any interested Fedora packager may run for FESCo, the only requirement
is membership in the 'packager' group in FAS. Especially noteworthy
is that 'provenpackager' or sponsor status is not required - this
keeps the bar low for new members.
Nominations are open through 29 May 09 at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations.
More general information about the election process can be found at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections
Just wondering one thing.
Why can "packagers" (and only those) apply for fesco?
Is there any special reason for that?
9:07 a.m.
Jon Stanley said the following on 05/20/2009 09:33 PM Pacific Time:
Election season is here again in Fedora! Nominations are now open
for
the five open seats on FESCo. The following members have terms
expiring this cycle:
* Kevin Fenzi
* Dennis Gilmore
* Bill Nottingham
* Brian Pepple
* David Woodhouse
Any interested Fedora packager may run for FESCo, the only requirement
is membership in the 'packager' group in FAS. Especially noteworthy
is that 'provenpackager' or sponsor status is not required - this
keeps the bar low for new members.
Is this a new requirement--being a "Fedora packager"--and if so where is
it documented? I can see the logic, but I do not recall seeing this
requirement in the past.
John
9:26 a.m.
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 07:07 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Is this a new requirement--being a "Fedora packager"--and
if so where is
it documented? I can see the logic, but I do not recall seeing this
requirement in the past.
Our election policy states that 'Candidates may be any member of the
cvsextras group in the Fedora Accounts System'.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/FESCoElections
Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
10:15 a.m.
On 05/21/2009 07:56 PM, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 07:07 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> Is this a new requirement--being a "Fedora packager"--and if so where is
> it documented? I can see the logic, but I do not recall seeing this
> requirement in the past.
Our election policy states that 'Candidates may be any member of the
cvsextras group in the Fedora Accounts System'.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/FESCoElections
IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
Rahul
10:28 a.m.
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering
committee
for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
those groups, only I don't think they are. FESCo's primarily concerned
with the packages and distribution release side of the house.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
10:38 a.m.
On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
> not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
those groups, only I don't think they are.
FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups.
Rahul
10:44 a.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
>> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
>> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
>> not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
>
> That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
> those groups, only I don't think they are.
FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect artwork
or translations or the management of documentation?
I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire
tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation.
josh
11:07 a.m.
On 05/21/2009 08:44 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
>>> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
>>> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
>>> not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
>> That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
>> those groups, only I don't think they are.
> FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
> add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
> all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect artwork
or translations or the management of documentation?
I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire
tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation.
Why, just last week! :-)
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/142
which was discussed in:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-05-15.html
I'll note that FESCo left the decision to mizmo and ianweller as
representatives of the art and website teams. But FESCo didn't say that
they didn't have jurisdiction here... FESCo assumed it had the authority
to play mediator in the dispute. This relationship seems to be pretty
close to the FESCo <=> FPC relationship where the FPC is largely
autonomous but definitely comes under the wings of FESCo.
-Toshio
11:41 a.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:07:37AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 05/21/2009 08:44 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
>>>> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I
don't
>>>> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
>>>> not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
>>> That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
>>> those groups, only I don't think they are.
>> FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
>> add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
>> all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups.
>
> Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect artwork
> or translations or the management of documentation?
>
> I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire
> tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
> they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
> really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation.
>
Why, just last week! :-)
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/142
which was discussed in:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-05-15.html
I'll note that FESCo left the decision to mizmo and ianweller as
representatives of the art and website teams. But FESCo didn't say that
they didn't have jurisdiction here... FESCo assumed it had the authority
to play mediator in the dispute. This relationship seems to be pretty
close to the FESCo <=> FPC relationship where the FPC is largely
autonomous but definitely comes under the wings of FESCo.
OK, so odd example, but yes I guess that does have some impact to the website
team. I know that when I was reviewing that, I was looking at it from the
technical standpoint of 'should we be preferring x86_64 for installs' and not
from an asthetic point of view. That is perhaps weasely, but true.
See how my brain works? "Evaluate the technical aspects, leave the
non-technical stuff to people that know and care about it."
josh
11:10 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer(a)gmail.com>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
<fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: FESCo election nominations now open
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering
>>> committee
>>> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I
>>> don't
>>> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
>>> not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
>>
>> That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
>> those groups, only I don't think they are.
>
>FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
>add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
>all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these
>groups.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect
artwork
or translations or the management of documentation?
Since when does FESCo limit itself to technical decisions? FESCo makes
decisions on policy, features, schedules, OK, maybe the occasional technical
decision sneaks in there. One could argue that Docs, being on the tail end
of that train, gets whipped around by those decisions more than anyone.
(Obviously a personal perspective, maybe L10N is even worse).
Even so, I guess I'm a fan of having those decisions made by folks with a
strong technical background, so I don't have a problem with the requirement.
But let's not labor under the illusion that FESCo's decisions are solely
technical.
--McD
11:47 a.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:10:09PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
> Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical
decisions effect
> artwork
> or translations or the management of documentation?
Since when does FESCo limit itself to technical decisions? FESCo makes
decisions on policy, features, schedules, OK, maybe the occasional
Aside from the flags discussion, most of the policies FESCo deal with the
technical aspects of Fedora. Schedules are primarily driven by John and
rel-eng. FESCo just approves them. Why, I have no idea.
technical decision sneaks in there. One could argue that Docs, being
on
the tail end of that train, gets whipped around by those decisions more
than anyone. (Obviously a personal perspective, maybe L10N is even
worse).
From a content point of view, yes. But FESCo doesn't dictate
anything about
your schedule, how you do documentation, what you document, etc.
Even so, I guess I'm a fan of having those decisions made by
folks with a
strong technical background, so I don't have a problem with the
requirement. But let's not labor under the illusion that FESCo's
decisions are solely technical.
I'm not sure I would say they are soley technical. But they are most certainly
technically oriented for the vast majority of items.
josh
11:10 a.m.
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 11:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire
tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation.
I don't recall any significant issues regarding those groups during my
time as FESCo either.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
12:08 p.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
>>> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
>>> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
>>> not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
>>
>> That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
>> those groups, only I don't think they are.
>
>FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
>add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
>all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect artwork
or translations or the management of documentation?
I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire
tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation.
Well, letting a much broader segment of the Fedora community vote
causes a disconnect with me. If they aren't "fit" to run for an open
seat why are they "fit" to elect those who are?
I think the question of whether being in the packager group is still
really relevant is a fair question to reflect on. I'm not suggesting
the requirement no longer makes sense, but I haven't really heard a
reason why it does yet.
I think it is also fair to reflect on the composition of the
electorate and whether FAS+1 really makes sense for FESCo elections.
John
12:51 p.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:08:02PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
> I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in
my entire
> tenure in FESCo. Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
> they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
> really have any direct impact on them. Similarly for translation.
Well, letting a much broader segment of the Fedora community vote
causes a disconnect with me. If they aren't "fit" to run for an open
seat why are they "fit" to elect those who are?
At one point, they weren't. People complained about this, for good reason,
and the voting requirement was changed from cvs_extras to cla_done +1 FAS group.
At least that is what I think happened.
I think the question of whether being in the packager group is still
really relevant is a fair question to reflect on. I'm not suggesting
the requirement no longer makes sense, but I haven't really heard a
reason why it does yet.
I think it is also fair to reflect on the composition of the
electorate and whether FAS+1 really makes sense for FESCo elections.
Honestly, if we want to open up the candidate pool to the same thing as the
voting pool that is fine with me. If you think it's important enough, you
could certainly file a ticket with FESCo and we can discuss it.
josh
1:06 p.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:08:02PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
>I think it is also fair to reflect on the composition of the
>electorate and whether FAS+1 really makes sense for FESCo elections.
Honestly, if we want to open up the candidate pool to the same thing as the
voting pool that is fine with me. If you think it's important enough, you
could certainly file a ticket with FESCo and we can discuss it.
I would just as likely think the voting pool should be constricted to
be aligned with the candidate pool. Without thoughtful deliberation
and some understanding of the reasoning behind its current structure
it just seems rather arbitrary to me. And I'm sure there was plenty of
thoughtful deliberation at the time, but I'm unaware of what it was.
Whatever election system works for FESCo that results in a good
committee that is capable of moving the Fedora Project ahead is really
fine with me personally.
John
4:23 p.m.
On Thu, 21 May 2009, inode0 wrote:
I would just as likely think the voting pool should be constricted
to
be aligned with the candidate pool. Without thoughtful deliberation
and some understanding of the reasoning behind its current structure
it just seems rather arbitrary to me. And I'm sure there was plenty of
thoughtful deliberation at the time, but I'm unaware of what it was.
I was actually starting to write what a terrible idea this would be, as
we'd be taking a step back from being a truly open project...
But then it occured to me, that we've never really been an open project.
There's no way to vote for a feature which will then be implemented as a
simple example. If you want a feature, implement it or persuade someone
that it is important enough for him to write the necessary code.
Fedora has always been (more or less) a meritocracy. Whoever does the
work, has the power to define the direction fedora is taking.
From what I gather, everybody is happy with this approach.
Allowing everybody with cla_done plus one additional group to vote for the
Fedora steering organizations is actually going against the meritocracy.
Fedora ismostly a collection of software packages. Therefore it is
consistent with the idea of a meritocracy to restrict the candidate pool
for the steering committee to the people working on the software, that is
everyone with cvs access.
Limiting the group of people eligble to cast votes to the same group of
people is actually not a bad idea. That way, the only the people having to
live under the new management can vote for it.
This reasoning has a certain appeal to me even though I know that it
disregards the contributions by the art team, the translators etc.
On the other hand, as it was mentioned in this thread several times, Fesco
doesn't really set much policy for their work either. Thus it's an
acceptable trade off.
As supporting evidence a simple example from the top of my head: The
Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee can only be elected by members of
the ambassador group.
regards,
andreas
3:27 p.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andreas Thienemann <andreas(a)bawue.net> wrote:
Fedora has always been (more or less) a meritocracy. Whoever does
the
work, has the power to define the direction fedora is taking.
This I believe is the hardest nut to crack with Fedora elections. The
Fedora Board and FESCo and others think of themselves as being part of
a meritocracy (at least that is my perception of what they think) but
at the same time are trying to encourage more widespread democratic
participation which naturally runs counter to perpetuating the
meritocracy.
Candidates actions historically speak volumes about them in Fedora
elections as the few doing the electing know them. With wide open
elections where voters do not know the candidates all sorts of new
problems arise and the expectations and demands of naive voters seem
to be a silly burden to the candidates. The same people are getting
elected either way because the same people thus far self-nominate and
voter participation remains low.
I'm not sure what the perceived benefit was of making the election
process more open, other than more open seems a good thing to us
instinctively.
John
3:48 p.m.
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 15:27 -0500, inode0 wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andreas Thienemann
<andreas(a)bawue.net> wrote:
> Fedora has always been (more or less) a meritocracy. Whoever does the
> work, has the power to define the direction fedora is taking.
This I believe is the hardest nut to crack with Fedora elections. The
Fedora Board and FESCo and others think of themselves as being part of
a meritocracy (at least that is my perception of what they think) but
at the same time are trying to encourage more widespread democratic
participation which naturally runs counter to perpetuating the
meritocracy.
Candidates actions historically speak volumes about them in Fedora
elections as the few doing the electing know them. With wide open
elections where voters do not know the candidates all sorts of new
problems arise and the expectations and demands of naive voters seem
to be a silly burden to the candidates. The same people are getting
elected either way because the same people thus far self-nominate and
voter participation remains low.
I'm not sure what the perceived benefit was of making the election
process more open, other than more open seems a good thing to us
instinctively.
John
+1 to that. Take me for example, I've been around for sometime and heave
_HEARD_ all the candidates names somewhere or the other, and read their
mails on the lists and maybe taken help from them sometime over the IRC
etc. However, I agree with what John had written earlier..
"Well, letting a much broader segment of the Fedora community vote
causes a disconnect with me. If they aren't "fit" to run for an open
seat why are they "fit" to elect those who are?"
I still don't think I'm fit to vote.. :|
--
regards,
Ankur
3:48 p.m.
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:27 PM, inode0 <inode0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andreas Thienemann
<andreas(a)bawue.net> wrote:
This I believe is the hardest nut to crack with Fedora elections. The
Fedora Board and FESCo and others think of themselves as being part of
a meritocracy (at least that is my perception of what they think) but
at the same time are trying to encourage more widespread democratic
participation which naturally runs counter to perpetuating the
meritocracy.
A meritocracy _is_, in a sense, a democracy, so voting limited to a
meritocratic system is not "closed". Anyone has the right to
participate and thus join the meritocracy -- unless you're implying
that Fedora is preventing users from joining it (and I don't think you
are).
For those who do not have the knowledge, or do not have the time to
contribute, by logical reasoning it follows that they deserve _less_
influence than those who do.
I do not contribute to Fedora, so I do not expect to be given the same
privileges of influence/decision making as someone who actually does
-- e.g., a developer or contributor. To do otherwise would be
presumptuous and audacious of me.
Absolute democracy in society is based on the loose idea that everyone
is a citizen -- therefore, everyone contributes to society and
deserves a say. In this sense, you can limit Fedora voting to Fedora
contributors, and the community is still a democracy.
3:51 p.m.
Or, for a more concrete metaphor...
All Americans have the right to vote. But Europeans who just pop in
on vacation do not.
Likewise, random internet denizens who just show up (even predictably
and dedicatedly) and post mailing-list messages should have no special
privilege to vote for Fedora's direction and leadership.
A democracy is not open to everyone -- it merely defines equality
_within_ a predefined group (of citizens, of community members, etc).
2:46 p.m.
On 05/21/2009 11:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Honestly, if we want to open up the candidate pool to the same thing as the
voting pool that is fine with me. If you think it's important enough, you
could certainly file a ticket with FESCo and we can discuss it.
Wouldn't it be a board decision?
Rahul
2:53 p.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram
<sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Wouldn't it be a board decision?
I don't believe so - I don't believe that the board weighed in on the
Docs decision to do away with FDSco, if I'm not mistaken. Individual
commitees should be free to decide their own voting policy and the
qualifications of their own candidates.
Of course if the board had differences with whatever we decided, they
would be well within their purview to intervene.
3:07 p.m.
On 05/22/2009 01:23 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
> Wouldn't it be a board decision?
I don't believe so - I don't believe that the board weighed in on the
Docs decision to do away with FDSco, if I'm not mistaken. Individual
commitees should be free to decide their own voting policy and the
qualifications of their own candidates.
I don't think docs committee and FESCo is not at the same level which is
why I believe others should be allowed to vote in the first place.
Anyway advisory board is copied and they can be aware. I will raise it
up to the board if necessary. Meanwhile filed a ticket at
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/156
Thank you for your consideration.
Rahul
3:10 p.m.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram
<sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/156
Thank you for your consideratio
No problem, caught me right as I was doing the agenda. Will be on the
agenda for tomorrow, 1700UTC.
3:23 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Stanley" <jonstanley(a)gmail.com>
To: <fedora-advisory-board(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
<fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: FESCo election nominations now open
I don't believe so - I don't believe that the board weighed
in on the
Docs decision to do away with FDSco, if I'm not mistaken.
You are correct, the board was not consulted. Basically, the team concluded
that since a relatively small number of folks actually work on Docs, it made
no sense to have a separate steering team. The FPL was involved in those
discussions, but he had no more votes than anyone else. As I recall, it was
a concensus decision.
--McD
5490
days inactive
5491
days old
25 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Andreas Thienemann -
Ankur Sinha -
Brian Pepple -
inode0 -
Jesse Keating -
John J. McDonough -
John Poelstra -
Jon Stanley -
Josh Boyer -
Jud Craft -
Mark -
Rahul Sundaram -
Toshio Kuratomi