Reasons for hall monitoring
gilboad at gmail.com
Sun May 9 20:15:25 UTC 2010
On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 14:07 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 20:34:57 +0300,
> Gilboa Davara <gilboad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thus far, it seemed that the both the user and the developer communities
> > were left out of these proceedings, and everything was more-or-less
> > decided by FESCO, which left (large?) parts of the developer community
> > feeling left out.
> The board has been trying to answer questions related to this (who is Fedora
> for). And I think they recently completed that task. I think the next thing
> up would be to look at how well we are or aren't serving the people who
> Fedora is supposed to be for.
> A good starting point for this work is at:
> There is a board election coming up and it is a good time to ask prospective
> board members questions related to the future of Fedora.
I believe you missed my point.
I don't claim that the board ignored this issue. Far from it.
I am claiming that having the board make this decision without the
involving of the community is slowly (?) driving both developers and
As for the coming FESCO election, I may be alone on this matter, but
even though I took the time to read the nominees mission statement, I
can't say that I really know what each nominee think about this issue.
This more-or-less negates the effectiveness of using the coming FESCO
election as a policy changer. (Though as I said, I may be alone on this
More information about the devel