On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:04:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 06:22 -0400, Sam Folk-Williams wrote:
> To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want
> to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them.
>
Not sure about voting. Ambassadors and FESCo have only started to vote
on their positions this past year after having a while to create a sense
of what roles the elected body is supposed to perform. These positions
are also different than FESCo and Ambassadors in that it isn't an
election of a body of people -- it's an election to individual
positions. This is the difference between elections for the city
council and elections for sheriff, treasurer, and mayor. For these
specialized positions you want someone who is familiar with the issues
that will be facing them in that job as they will be the go-to person
when problems crop up in those areas.
Which isn't to say that voters couldn't do a good job of picking people
with the right skills and knowledge here either. But I think we lack
one other criteria for good elections: voters. Currently we only have
31 people listed in the sysadmin groups so it's somewhat silly to hold
elections for seven positions at this point. I think a simple
confirmation/discussion will better serve us at this time.
Prior to filling positions with people and titles, it would be better to
define the obligations, responsibilities, and the work-flow for each of
these positions.
Like "What exactly does the Build System/Package Manager [X] do? How does he
differ from other contributors within the Infrastructure Group? What
do you--i.e. a contributor or person within the Infrastructure Group--need
him for instead of the list?" [X] insert other position titles here
Especially for people outside the Infrastructure Group or even outside the
Fedora Project, such information about the structure of parts of the
project is important.