governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Well, IMO, Fedora Extras had been a success, Core had largely been a
> > continuation of RHEL.

> > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect,
> > > > which are not in the community's interest.
> > > 
> > > Very true, but I don't think there is a difference between
> > > community and RH here.
> 
> > There is a substantial difference: Community members first must
> > propose something, [...]
> 
> I'm not talking theory, I talk out of experience. Prominent community
> members have been doing (and still do) just as much backstage talking
> as RH people. Anyway this is another story.
I know and don't see what would be wrong about it.

> So, criticism is OK, it leads to better structures. But this doesn't
> mean that the whole structure is bad to start with.
The problem is "which structure"?

We have been seeing new committees/groups with unclear competences
violently taking over certain tasks and violently implementing new
hurdles mushrooming almost on a weekly basis.

IMO, Fedora leadership needs a structure, needs clearly defined "jobs",
"groups", with clearly defined hierarchies, competences and monitoring.

> > Or fedora centric: Too many ninjas around.
> 
> Well, you criticise concentration of powers and diversity of powers in
> the same paragraph, which one is it? :)
No, I am criticizing the fact certain people are concentrating all
powers on them and are seemingly "carelessly" using them.

This contradicts diversion of powers and renders the thought of
"monitoring/supervision" ad-absurdum.

> > My initial points remain: I don't see any job left for FESCo and I am
> > still seeing too much @RH.

> This is a contract that the current community gladly accepted. And RH
> is trying to stay out of the radar, empowering the community to do the
> right thing as far as possible.
Nobody denies giving RH credits for assigning resources etc., but when
it comes to leadership, I perceive RH as granting the community the
liberty of taking the bits/crumbs RH is not interested in.

What RH still doesn't seem to want to accept: To the same extend the
community depends on RH, Fedora and RH depend on the community.

> This means that at the top of the decision making chain you will have
> a majority that is RH, which is the 5/4 ratio in the board. Whatever
> follows beneath is secondary and not relevant to the principal parts
> of the "community contract".
Frankly speaking, I think, most community contributors probably don't
care at all what how RH, FESCo etc. do, as long as Fedora's
infrastructure and objectives fit into their demands. For me, they
increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the side-effects of the
merger as obstacle.

> There is lots to do for the new fesco (and its children groups): It
> will just concentrate on solving technical issues, which is what is
> was effectively doing anyway. The old fesco would not be able to
> decide to include into Extras closed source parts, firmwares or patent
> problematic parts.
Ask yourself why FESCo couldn't. IMO, largely because nobody enabled
them to do so.

Or differently: 
* If FESCo had decided to allow "non-free firmware", they would have
been shot by the community and/or RH, like the community/RH did on
similar occasions.
* FESCo can't decide on legal/patent matters, because they lack the
knowledge. One escape would have been RH to provide them with legal
advisors, or some volunteers to appear, but ... neither happened :(
* FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed
knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations".
* FESCo could decide on "tactical matters/executive jobs" (e.g. fixing
release dates, establishing committees, deciding on mailing lists),
because this doesn't require detailed knowledge, ... in many cases this
doesn't happen, because other "leaders" overruled them.

> Or to rephrase it: What would you think is not possible anymore for
> fesco to do, which formerly was?

I don't see what they could decide what FAB can't and vice-versa. 
Both widely overlap. There is one difference: FESCo was supposed to be
elected, while FAB is "RH proclaimed".

Ralf