Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

[Adam Miller]

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:36 AM, John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
<snip>
> These are *working drafts and in process documents* all the in spirit of
> transparency.  It would be more helpful to these discussions to get
> clarification on advisory-board first rather than conclude that the
> board has run off the rails by using words like "letting" and "allowing"
> in documents that are brainstorming and unfinished.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that we've posted all meeting
> recaps to advisory-board list and there has been ZERO discussion or
> inquiries there.  We specifically asked for feedback to the original
> list of "unanswered questions" on advisory-board. Is there a particular
> reason you did not respond there?
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-January/007886.html
>
> I feel like you are discounting the board's efforts and misdirecting a
> lot energy by launching a new thread here with your "concerns" before
> first getting clarification on advisory-board.
>

I'm not on some crusade to undermine the Board if that's what you
think, I'm honestly looking for clarification but not only from those
involved in the Board but the community as well and both are located
here on this list. I don't see why it matters where the questions are
asked, just so long as they are asked.

As far as replying to the advisory-board mailing list first, I will be
sure to do so in the future. I apparently forgot my place in the
hierarchy for a moment. Apologies for not following protocol.

-AdamM

-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments