FPC elections

Josh Boyer jwboyer at gmail.com
Thu May 16 13:29:51 UTC 2013

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>> adopted
>>>>> 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
>>>>> their
>>>>> 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
>>>> farce.
>>> This complaint was about FPC and you are unfortunately wrong about that:
>>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-April/009068.html
>>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-May/001147.html
>>> 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 being
> hyperbolic.

I though your comment about elections was about FESCo, not FPC.  Given
your earlier comments about FESCo not doing anything, I thought you
were still referencing them with the elections.  It was my
misunderstanding.  I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

> 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 FPC.
> 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.

Have you suggested an election for the FPC?  Looking at Vit's links, I
see he asked for an open process and you immediately went to
disbanding the FPC.


More information about the devel mailing list