Appointment of Board Members.

[Bill Nottingham]

Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at gmail.com) said: 
> > I also recall some occassions where it was argued 
> > that FESCo should be more involved in the day to day direction, creation 
> > and development of the distro and yet the response from some FESCo 
> > members was that they already had too much to do and couldn't take on more.
> 
> Sure -- but the proper response in an empowered FESCo would be to delegate
> the work that they have out rather than the Board to take it upon
> themselves.

Delegating implies directed resources that FESCo can delegate *to*.
I don't know that we have that in any real manner. (There's the FES
tickets, but even that's best-effort.) I suppose there's FPC, but there's
very little FESCo can delegate to when it comes to things like 'create
this feature' or 'write this software'. You could say we delegated AutoQA
to the QA group, but I'm not sure that actually made it happen any sooner.

> Electing people to FESCo in order to make a difference only to have the
> Board telling those decision makers what to do puts everyone under stress
> because of false expectations.  You once said that you didn't understand why
> fesco existed since it just seemed like middle management so let's really
> evaluate this -- maybe FESCo is middle management and we have no reason to
> elect them.  Or maybe we really do want them to be more than that and
> therefore we should make sure that they have both the power and the
> responsibility to do that.

Speaking as a FESCo member, I find far more frustration in general
sniping and noise from random (or not-so-random) community members than
from anything the Board does.

Bill