Appointment of Board Members.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:21:45 -0400,
  Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ideas:
> * Have the Feature Wrangler assemble a team

If only assembling teams were that easy.
 
> Which, perhaps, shows that elections are a bad idea for Fedora?  Or at least
> parts of Fedora?  Perhaps the Board should be 100% elected (to represent the
> contributors) but FESCo should be structured more like rel-eng, fes, and
> infrastructure where people show up to do work.  Or perhaps *FESCo* should be
> appointed for their technical expertise.

FESCO is in the position of mediating disputes. I think having this handled
by an elected body is better for getting buy in for this.

> Do you see FESCo's primary role as being representatives of the contributors
> whose core directive is to empower them to make Fedora?  Or do you see
> FESCo's primary purpose as a body that keeps the distribution on-track,
> figuring out new ways to produce a high quality distribution?

I see them as needing technical expertise, willingness to do work, act as
a knowledge sharing nexus, ability to do forward looking for techincal
improvements in tools and workflow used by developers, QA, and Releng and
to be able to moderate conflicts related to software packaging.