Appointment of Board Members.

[Bill Nottingham]

Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at gmail.com) said: 
> For instance, delegating the Feature approvals to the Feature Wrangler.

We could do that in some sort of subcommittee. However, if there is supposed
to be technical review for appropriateness, notification of other people that
might be affected, coordination, and so on, I'm not sure that delegating it
to someone who's primarily process-and-tracking oriented is best.

> Delegating approval of the Packaging Guidelines to the FPC.

As long as FPC states they want FESCo to approve them, we'll approve them.
I honestly think that delegating responsiblities to volunteers that *don't*
want those responsiblities is a bad way to build community. YMMV.

> > 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.
>
> I find far more frustration in having people in power talk about noise and
> sniping than about any of the comments that people without power repeat over
> and over again.  When a community member is rude enough times, you learn to
> ignore their outbursts and temper tantrums and only read for the actual
> content that they have (if they generally have any).  When a leader of our
> community decides that they can label members of the community's well-meant
> messages as sniping and noise, you start to wonder if they're really doing
> a good job  building consensus, getting people with conflicting viewpoints
> to talk to each other, and most of all, whether they're listening to you or
> not.

- I should ignore them, esepcially if they don't appear to have any point
- However, if I *do* that, you then wonder 'most of all, whether they're
  listening to you or not'?

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. You haven't left any workable choices.

Bill