Appointment of Board Members.

[Max Spevack]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 07:09:47AM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>> Toshio Kuratomi said the following on 08/13/2010 01:48 PM Pacific Time:
>>> Notes:
>>> * In the Max Spevack era, the Board was pushed away from making decisions
>>>    for two reasons: 1) FESCo was deemed to be the body that understood the
>>>    technical issues at hand and therefore the body that should make most of
>>>    the decisions regarding Fedora.  2) The Board was not all elected and
>>>    therefore didn't have as much of a "mandate from the people".  In the Paul
>>>    Frields era, the Board started to make many more decisions.  I don't think
>>>    that's necessarily a good thing as they've trampled all over reason #1
>>>    above but being fully elected would help to alleviate reason #2.
>>
>> I don't recall things going down this way.  Please name some concrete
>> examples of this "trampling" so we can be discussing the same thing.
>>
> The first example of it that I can think of was at the transition between
> the Max Spevack and Paul Frields eras with Codeina.  Here's some pointers
> from the middle to mid-end of that:
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2008-March/005032.html
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2008-March/005054.html

I don't understand what these two emails are meant to illustrate.

Codeina was an open issue around the time we transitioned the FPL role 
from me to Paul.  I recall one of the first things that Paul worked on 
with his FPL hat on was to address that problem.

That's what I see when I re-read his email.

What I see when I re-read mine is me doing my best to apologize for a 
situation that I felt ultimately responsible for, and to be accountable 
in public, especially because other people were cleaning up an issue 
that carried over from my "watch", so to speak.

--Max