"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Thu May 16 13:11:59 UTC 2013
On 05/16/2013 11:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Dne 14.5.2013 20:46, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
>>>> Heck the community did not have the faintest idea which tickets they even
>>>> worked ( or did any work at all ) on until I literally request they
>>>> the fesco model so we atleast could get a faint idea what was going to be
>>>> discussed on those meeting...
>>> Sounds like working with them has paid off nicely. Maybe you should
>>> do more of that.
>>>> Let's just continue to cross finger hope that those that have been chosen
>>>> <-- yeah that's right not elected but chosen bother to show up to do
>>>> due diligence and reach a quorum.
>>> The elections are open, and the voting is not rigged. You can be
>>> displeased all you like about who gets elected and what they choose
>>> (or not choose) to look at, but that doesn't make those committees a
>> This complaint was about FPC and you are unfortunately wrong about that:
>> There is nothing like open election to FPC.
> Ah. I thought he was referring to FESCo and being hyperbolic.
Yet you responded...
"Sounds like working with them has paid off nicely. Maybe you should do
more of that."
Which indicates your realized that I was referring to FPC not FESCO or
Anyway working with them does not make the process going any faster
since to me the FPC and it's concept is the bottleneck vs the open way
of ack/nack/patch approach where you would have more participants and
eyes on the guidelines changes including by the ones that already are on
It seem to me that the reason people would not want this is because of
their own lack of faith and trust in the community and Vít is right if
we are going to "hang on" having FPC then the current members should be
relieved from their duty and an open election held for their positions
within the community.
More information about the devel