governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:36:00PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> It would not matter if I felt @RH's were acting neutrally and unbiased.

Neutral to what? Was there any topic where the community would say
left and RH said right?

> The opposite applies.

Where?

I think you are upset because some thing were a bit bumpy. And you
looked at the leaders of the respective groups and saw @redhat.com
there. There is no intention in Red Hat to sabotage Fedora, bigger
changes have their cost and things break.

Would it make any difference if the people in charge had no Red Hat
affiliation? The people would probably make the same choices but w/o
having a job that allows them to dedicate themselves to fix things,
you would have seen much more broken bits and for a longer time.

In a nutshell: Yes, the merger has some troubles - yes, it was
expected due to the amount of changes involved. And no, Red Hat does
not break Fedora on purpose.

And finally: Who do you think was making pressure to finally do the
merger? Yes, it was the community and Red Hat opened up all old Core
structures to make it more community-like. And attacking Red Hat for
doing that seems bizarre.
-- 
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/a7f6b543/attachment.bin