governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:51:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking
> > > > > effect, which are not in the community's interest.
> > Prominent community members have been doing (and still do) just as
> > much backstage talking as RH people. Anyway this is another story.

> I know and don't see what would be wrong about it.

So when RH talks behind your back it's wrong, but when non-RH does the
same it's OK?

> What RH still doesn't seem to want to accept: To the same extend the
> community depends on RH, Fedora and RH depend on the community.

I'm sure everybody is aware of this fruitful symbiosis.

> Frankly speaking, I think, most community contributors probably don't
> care at all what how RH, FESCo etc. do, as long as Fedora's
> infrastructure and objectives fit into their demands.

Well, that goes w/o saying. Same applies to your local goverment. And
if the leadership is not visible then that speaks in favour of a
project.

> For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the
> side-effects of the merger as obstacle.

Which side-effects? There are obstructions on any new road, and these
are being leveled out. Changes just break things, workflows etc, and
we need to put things back together. But the net result is for the
better, no doubt!
 
> > There is lots to do for the new fesco (and its children groups): It
> > will just concentrate on solving technical issues, which is what is
> > was effectively doing anyway. The old fesco would not be able to
> > decide to include into Extras closed source parts, firmwares or patent
> > problematic parts.

> Ask yourself why FESCo couldn't. IMO, largely because nobody enabled
> them to do so.
> 
> Or differently: 
> * If FESCo had decided to allow "non-free firmware", they would have
> been shot by the community and/or RH, like the community/RH did on
> similar occasions.
> * FESCo can't decide on legal/patent matters, because they lack the
> knowledge. One escape would have been RH to provide them with legal
> advisors, or some volunteers to appear, but ... neither happened :(
> * FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed
> knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations".

The FPC is part of fesco if you like. They are an subordinate group
with many fesco members inside.

> * FESCo could decide on "tactical matters/executive jobs" (e.g. fixing
> release dates, establishing committees, deciding on mailing lists),
> because this doesn't require detailed knowledge, ... in many cases this
> doesn't happen, because other "leaders" overruled them.

That just changed.

> > Or to rephrase it: What would you think is not possible anymore for
> > fesco to do, which formerly was?
> 
> I don't see what they could decide what FAB can't and vice-versa. 
> Both widely overlap. There is one difference: FESCo was supposed to be
> elected, while FAB is "RH proclaimed".
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070612/5ce81181/attachment.bin