Appointment of Board Members.

[Kevin Fenzi]

I never know where to post on these kinds of threads. ;) 

I don't have the time or desire to reply to each email and answer it's
specific points, but I did want to throw my 2 cents in, so I will just
do it here. If there's specific things people would like me to answer,
just let me know. 

So, my thoughts: 

FESCo and the Board have in the past done some back and forth as to
what items should be handled in which body. Have there been cases where
one body worked on something perhaps the other should have? Sure. 
Can we clarify the areas of responsibility or just re-work the way
Fedora is governed? We can, but we should figure out what we are trying
to accomplish and what any new setup would do better than what we have
now before we do, IMHO. I would encourage folks who think the
seperation is poorly defined to look at the Board minutes from this
very list and list out specific items you think the Board dealt with
that should have been dealt with by FESCo (and vise versa :) 
What powers should be moved back to FESCo? 

On FPC ratification in FESCo. I think this is a non issue. Even when
there were things coming in from FPC to be ratified regularly, it took
very little fesco time to deal with. 

Features on the other hand do take up a lot of time from FESCo. I might
be ok delegating this to somewhere else if we can find somewhere else
thats willing to do it and will check features carefully. Many times
when FESCo is reviewing features we have the people on hand to know a
lot about the area the feature is in, so we have info on if it's
possible, how far along it is, if the submitter(s) need to work with
other groups or what info they need to provide. Ideally if we delegate
this I would like to see features still scrutinized for these kinds of
things (not just "the process was followed"). 

On feedback and listening to maintainers: I do in fact read all the
devel lists, irc logs, this list, test list, etc. I can't speak to
other FESCo folks, but I think many of them do also. I find myself in a
quandy with some very vocal people: I know their position from their
other 10,000 posts. I disagree with it. If I don't post, it sounds like
I am not listening or agree, but if I do post it results in the same
rehashed discussion where no one wins, and people unsubscribe from our
devel list and find our community unwelcoming. I also find that just a
few (2-3) people shouting make it harder to hear feedback from
reasonable people. Perhaps we should make sure to encourage
those people to make their position clear. Finally, I would like to add
that I am happy to hear from anyone in Fedora. Catch me on irc (nirik
on freenode) or drop me an email. 

As to reworking the number of Board people who are elected vs
appointed, I think we should not make any changes until: 

- A clear list of issues with the current setup is written up. 
- A new governance plan is created that would address/fix/make better
  those issues
- The new plan doesn't create major new issues that anyone can see. 

Thats not to say that we shouldn't re-evaluate how we are setup, but
just that we should look before we leap. ;) 

Anyhow, I'm sure I have missed things on this thread, will try and
followup to any replies to this or talk to folks on irc, etc. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20100817/f8acba90/attachment-0001.bin