Board/FESCo mission/vision FAD

Jon Masters jonathan at
Wed Sep 1 07:07:37 UTC 2010

On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 01:08 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jon Masters (jonathan at said: 
> > > "Hi, we decided in our distro we're not taking the next 2.6.37
> > > kernel b/c it's WEIRD, and we're not taking it until you revert THAT
> > > PATCH OVER THERE."  How would that make us sound?
> > 
> > I didn't say that. But if some feature X that affecting plumbing had to
> > be discussed by a team representing each of the core pieces impacted, we
> > could bring that up and work out a plan together, not in silos.
> We have a group for this already, you know. Meets every week. You
> even showed up today for the meeting.

I really don't think it should be FESCOs purview to condense debate
about integration of new components into 8 minute bite-sized chunks,
they seem to have bigger concerns to be dealing with at the moment.

> If you've got issues with how that works (yes, that led to some
> of this thread), we can certainly discuss how to fix them. But setting
> up a second, different group to do the same thing seems pretty silly.

Well, I see some merit in having a regular sync session with different
engineering teams, without having to file tickets, etc. But I suppose
I'm not articulating what I mean well enough here. Let me come up with
an example and get back to you on how it would be done.


More information about the advisory-board mailing list