governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 10:05 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:40:22AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > [about RH controlled board being above fesco]
> > Exactly this is the point I want to see changed in near future, and feel
> > to be inevitable to be changed mid-term if Fedora wants to be a success.
> 
> Do you feel like Fedora is not a success due to that model? I think
> both that Fedora is a success and what is not working properly is not
> due to RH imposing any pressure.
Well, IMO, Fedora Extras had been a success, Core had largely been a
continuation of RHEL.

To judge whether Fedora as whole had been a success, is up to the eye of
the beholder. I don't see "overwhelming success" nor do I see "a
Waterloo". No doubt, Fedora had been "quite usable", but I also think
there can't be any doubt it could have been better.

With the merger, things have changed substantially. The merger is _the_
opportunity for RH to improve the overall situation. From a non-RH's
point of view, the key points to change would be "leadership" and a
better "Core".

> > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, which are
> > not in the community's interest.
> 
> Very true, but I don't think there is a difference between community
> and RH here.
There is a substantial difference: Community members first must propose
something, which will later be (more or less openly) discussed until
some ("dark") powers decide, before they will take effect.

RH "dark chamber" decisions in many cases first take effect, and are
never discussed nor voted on. They are "divine", except for some rare
occasions when one or more of these "divine creatures" has the grace to
listen.

ATM, I am seeing @RH's (esp. rel-eng) drawing arguable RH-centric
decisions, which I consider to be spoiling large parts of the basis the
former FE's success was based on.

> > > If you like, you could consider that some part of the fesco
> > > non-technical powers it once had have been elevated to the board,
> > > and vice versa the board dropped micro-managing into engineering
> > > related questions. Since you get to vote part of the board the
> > > community has not lost any powers.
> > 
> > Well, I'd agree if this FESCo was to replace current FAB or if FAB was
> > "just consulting FESCo". 
> 
> (BTW I think FAB != board, FAB are the couple dozens of people on this
> list, while the board are 9 people)
Well, ... sigh ...

> > However, as I perceive it, Fedora actually is controlled by FAB, who
> > leaves some "administrational peanuts" to FESCo - Pretty poor, IMO.
> 
> You need a singular controlling instance in every scheme, be that a
> Linux distribution, a company, a goverment, or even a gang.
I disagree - keyword: division of powers.

Or fedora centric: Too many ninjas around.

> > Hmm, my vision of a Fedora government is Fedora to be governed by a
> > "parliament" populated with both RH and community
> > delegates/representatives. How to label such a parliament (be it FAB or
> > FESCo) is secondary.
> 
> But that's how the board will work, 4 people get elected (community)
> and 5 appointed from RH. You get the mix you mention.
Well, I must have missed this. 

It's definitely better than nothing and a small move into the correct
direction. However, I am still missing a "constitution".

My initial points remain: I don't see any job left for FESCo and I am
still seeing too much @RH.

Ralf