Appointment of Board Members.

David Nalley david at
Wed Aug 18 13:19:30 UTC 2010

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Max Spevack <mspevack at> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>       * future planning
>>       * features wrangling / approval
>>       * conflict resolution
>>       * resource allocation/requests (it'd be awesome if someone could
>>          actually write grants for stuff....)
>>       * OS design
>>       * Emerging technologies (not just what goes in but what cruft we
>>          need to cut out)
>>       * Project growth
>>       * Packaging / Integration guidelines
> Riffing on that a bit, I think there's an equal amount of optimizing and
> perhaps consolidating of roles when you think about some of the fuzzier
> parts of Fedora.
> For instance, why can't there be one group of people that collectively
> figures out a globally consistent way to handle budget requests --
> whether that is for a FUDCon, a FAD, a booth at a local event, media,
> swag, travel funding, etc.
> Streamline a lot of stuff, and do a better job of making sure that
> people know the discretionary/day-to-day budget that Red Hat allocates
> to the Fedora Project can be used by *anyone* or *any group* within our
> community that needs a monetary investment to support or help turn ideas
> into reality.

Why would we create yet another group to do this? FAmSCo already
manages around $100k worth of budget (though it's been heavily
delegated for the past few years, with FAmSCo retaining responsibility
but largely pushing decision making down)  Tacking on Premier Fedora
events and discretionary funds roughly doubles that, but I can't
imagine that the structure already in place wouldn't scale to meet
that. Moreover, that group tends to be more involved in the
organization of premier Fedora events than any other sub-group within

<disclaimer> I am on FAmSCo for a few more months, and have proposed
this idea before </disclaimer>

More information about the advisory-board mailing list