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

Re: governance, fesco, board, etc.

On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 13:25 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:

> I propose a Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, that "reports" to the 
> Fedora Board and that "oversees" the following sub-groups

There is one other issue to address here, and that is the groups that
have coverage/responsibility over areas that impacts FESCo.  Such as
L10n, Docs, etc.

I'd like to see some codification of the responsibility of the steering
committees to:

1. Keep FPB updated about their plans, and
2. Work as peers with a dotted-line reporting requirement to FESCo

For example, I think it is the job of FDSCo to let FESCo know what cool
stuff we are planning and working on.  FESCo needs to have say on that
direction *and* needs to help push the groups they oversee and the
developers within them to follow new changes.  A sort of two-way
responsibility, as peer groups, with various dependencies between, etc.

To match this, I think that steering committees that fail to do these
dotted-line duties should be disbanded.  Leaders who don't/won't work
openly and within the community, who don't do their dotted-line duties,
should be removed.

If that seems too Draconian to start with, we want to at least be
certain that our "positive messaging" approach leaves no doubt as to
what is required/acceptable behavior.  Because, yes, there are people
who need to be reminded to play open and nice with the other kids.

- Karsten
   Karsten Wade, 108 Editor       ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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