Fedora Board chair looks ahead
marc.w at smlintl.com.au
Wed May 24 02:11:10 UTC 2006
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:04 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Hi
> > http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/05/15/1729249.shtml?tid=2
> > Max, can you expand on the reference to conary? Is there a switch in
> > package management actually being discussed or was that a analogy?
> No, no switch being discussed -- that was just the author's conclusion
> based on my quote. I can see how he would think that, but it wasn't what
> I was trying to suggest at all.
> Overall, I was pleased with the article. I thought it was very well done.
One of the things I read through maybe into it was that people were
discussing different views of voting.
I would have thought that the contributors as in not me but other people
who have significantly contributed to the project should vote but aside
from that other people shouldn't.
My thoughts are based on the fact that commitment is showing in
contribution. However grey areas such as myself is the annoying
It's quite interesting from someone that is not involved in the
discussions to see how it turns out.
Is there a chance of having different members of the board speaking
publicly? What I mean by this is having them with all their free
time /sarcasm spend a few moments in putting a path in words of where
fedora is heading?
I quite like reading articles from leading people in the open source
community where they talk about whats up and coming and how they are
dealing with it.
It seems like several *points* can be made. 1. Marketing their distro.
2. Advising the community what someones view is on future changes.
Overall I liked it as well but by the end of the article it left me with
a huge number of questions.
More information about the marketing