The community has lost control... (Was: Re: Don't put new packages through updates-testing)

[Josh Boyer]

On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > 
> > On 03.06.2007 09:38, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 08:48 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Further: I don't blame the current situation is FESCo's fault (¹,²)
> > > It's definitely not their fault alone, but there can't be any doubt they
> > > share their part of guilt.
> > 
> > Well, we all likely share a part. 
> Right, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it, we are all
> imperfect humans and we all make mistakes and oversights.
> 
> > We all could have yelled louder if we
> > wanted; it might have changed some things here and there. But I for one
> > kept mostly quiet until now as I was willing to accept some bumpy time
> > to get the merge done for F7. But F7 is out now, so now we need to get
> > things in a better shape again.
> > 
> > I'm actually *wondering* if we should have a "spare time packagers
> > committee" (or something like that) that represents the packagers that
> > do their package maintenance work in their spare time. They afaics
> > sometimes simply don't have the time and the power to get their opinion
> > heard without investing even more of their rare spare time.
> Well, as I repeated said: I consider FESCo to be some sort of parliament
> constituting of representatives and not to be a "board of directors" or
> an administration.
> 
> > > One aspect: They allowed things to happen the way they happened and did
> > > not intervene when things began to derail.
> > >
> > > A question closely related to this: Would have FESCo been in a position
> > > to intervene? I am inclined to think no.
> > 
> > I'm inclined to think "yes, if they wanted to".
> ... the later half is the interesting part: I think, executive and
> legislative organs are too closely linked in FESCo. 
> 
> In other words, I think, current FESCo is not able to "monitor", because
> the "persons to monitor" are largely identical to "those to be
> monitored".
> 
> > > The real decisions are taken elsewhere.
> Let me try to clarify: I am not referring to "technical committees"
> working out details (under a Fedora Governments direction/supervision), 
> I am referring to non-technical, strategic decisions.
> 
> Trying to project this on real world governments: 
> * It's a government's job to decide upon "tax increases", not the "tax
> authorities". It's the tax authorities' job to work out (technical)
> details and the government's job to ratify them.
> * It's the government's job to decide upon "immigration regulations",
> not the "immigration office's". It's the "immigration offices' job to
> work out details and the government's job to ratify them.
> 
> > Well, that's why I'm urging the board to clarify the work areas for the
> > Board and FESCo.
> 
> >  That is lingering around for months now (see
> > fab-archives) and it seems everyone has different expectations in that
> > area.
> 
> I _did_ notice your posting and was waiting for FAB's and FESCO's
> voices. Their (non-) reaction to me is a strong indication for my claims
> above to be true.

Silence does not equal agreement.  I've been quite busy and haven't
found the time to writeup a response to Thorsten's email.  His is an
email that requires a bit more than a few sentences, so I want to write
a response correctly.

josh