[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FESCo future

Michael Schwendt schrieb:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:57:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> == Constitution of FPCSC ==
>> FPCSC will  needs to do what the "Core cabal" and FESCo do now and
>> thus will have a lot more work to do than FESCo currently does.
>> Thus it might be a good idea to make FPCSC a bit bigger. I'd say
>> 14, 16 or 18 people (FESCo currently has 13 members).
> FESCO's size is insufficient already. FESCO is not as productive as
> it could be if there were more members.

So you suggest even more members?

> Originally, FESCO had been created to form a small group of people
> who could get something done.

Well, we got a lot bigger in between...

> Over time, FESCO has degraded to a collection of people, who fill
> seats in multiple committees and find themselves unable to pursue
> "FESCO business".

Well, we had FESCo members in earlier FESCo's that were mostly quiet and
never showed up to the meeting or on the public lists, too. The problem
was even bigger than now.

Anyway, I partly agree; we have people in FESCo that have a whole lot of
packages, do a lot of reviews, are involved in other fedora business or
are member of other committees, too -- thus they have often not enough
time to concentrate on their FESCo work. Yeah, that not ideal. That the
reason for this in my proposal:

>> * inactive members get thrown out (we sooner or later need to
>> define how inactive looks in detail; not showing up in the
>> meetings, not participating or following FPCSC work, ...)

Anything else we {sh,c}could do to prevent such problems in FPCSC?

>> == Create sub-committees/groups for special tasks ==
>> FPCSC will have a lot more to do after the merge. Thus it has to 
>> delegate the all the work somehow and should not have to look after
>> each and every detail. Special groups with a committee that leads
>> them rather should look into the details and mostly work out
>> solutions own their own. FPCSC should more act as coordinator and
>> guide the big decisions.
> The "big decisions" must come from the committee.

Yeah, that's what I meant (and what's outlined a bit more in detail one
para after the above). I clarified the wording in both places.

> Only if the
> decision require additional work, this can be delegated to external
> contributors.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same stuff. I for example want
that the Packaging Committee mostly works on its own in the future and
decides nearly everything own its own. Big decisions just need a
explicit ACK from FPCSC or maybe need to be developed together.

> For instance, the final wording of policy documents can
> be finished with the assistance of documentation folks.

Hehe, that would be nice.

>> Most of these groups should act similar to the scheme how the
>> packaging committee or FESCo are working currently. Rough example:
>> * a members or the committee or some random interested contributor 
>> works out a proposal to solve a particular issue.
> Strike "most of",

I removed it and placed a explicit exception for the Red Hat committee
as I don't care how Red Hat people run it.

> because what you describe in detail is just _one
> way_ how the community can propose something what the committee has
> not thought of before.
> Ideally most of the expertise is available in the committee, and the 
> committee does not wait for community folks to influence the passive 
> steering.

Hmm, I'd prefer to have the community directly involved so they can
realize want they want and don't have to wait until a FPCSC member finds
time to work on a issue.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]