Review queue/FESCo after the merge

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:03:58AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> 
> The FPC has a documented process (which is almost never followed) on how

I am external to the FPC, but I follow these issues and it seems to me
that this process is often followed -- maybe not to the letter, but to
the intent. For little changes a mail may suffice (I remember I refused
to make a draft for the tetex -> tex prefix change), but as far as I
remember, there has always been a vote.

> We try to do this as efficiently as possible. We are ALWAYS open to new
> drafts and changes. We may not always approve them, but we will discuss
> just about anything. 

I can testify that it is true, since everytime I proposed something
informally or formally it was nicely discussed and processed. Sometimes
it takes long because one has to have a discussion, then FPC votes, then
FESCo ratifies, but I doubt this may be better without sucking too much
commitee members time.

> We're also open to process improvements, and we're
> actively seeking new members to serve on the FPC.
> 
> Thorsten, this is certainly not intended as a criticism for you, as I
> continue to have great admiration for the work that you do in the Fedora
> community, but rather, a call to action for specific improvements that
> we can make to streamline the bureaucracy. :)

I am not a bureaucracy lover and it seems to me that the FPC is doing a
good work. We really need bureaucracy for the guideline changes. And
maybe I am disgressing here, but I also think that sometimes some
bureaucracy helps shaping processes such that the process themselves are
less bureaucratic. For example if there had been a commitee composed of
users looking at the rel-eng policy changes, maybe there won't have been
so much heavy processes accepted (this is gradually becoming better 
but at some point it was unbearable). Otherwise said bureaucratic
control over the processes themselves may help avoiding bureaucratic 
processes.

--
Pat