governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Karsten Wade]

On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:23 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 23:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> > If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the 
> > schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem 
> > unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is 
> > it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them?
> 
> FESCo generally

+1

It should take more than just one person complaining to get the FPB
involved (as a body) in these decisions.  Obviously, Board members may
be involved as contributors in the decision.

What I'm saying is, it shouldn't be possible to do an end-run[1] around
FESCo, unless there is something egregious happening.  To prevent that,
we may want an informal "Ombudsman clause".  Someone from the community
can contact an FPB member directly, specify the egregiousness, and that
Board member can either take it to the rest of the Board, or talk to the
FESCo chair about the situation.

Objective -- avoid wasteful and silly fights. :)

- Karsten

[1] Idiomatic phrase from American football, meaning to skip the usual
processes and go around a blocking entity.

-- 
   Karsten Wade, 108 Editor       ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070608/53913842/attachment.bin