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

Re: FESCO (was: Re: Orphaning package)



On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 17:35 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 26.04.2008 15:13, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:48:18 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 11:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>> On 26.04.2008 11:02, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >>>> In the past, somebody from the old FESCO would have looked into it and
> >>>> would have tried to talk to you and the people you have problems with.
> >>>> Nowadays, there should also be somebody in the Fedora community or in
> >>>> Fedora leadership with interest in keeping people happy and
> >>>> cooperative.
> >>> Why can't FESCo handle that instead of discussing Fetures over and over?
> >>> That how it afaics was supposed to be, as everyone wanted to keep FESCo
> >>> when the merge happened because most people back then liked the work
> >>> FESCO did (it IMHO could have been a lot better, but that's a different
> >>> issue).
> >> FESCo can't help if it doesn't know there is a problem.
> 
> And that is in fact the biggest problem *I* have with FESCo these days.
> FESCo afaics is mostly event driven these days (triggered by releases or
> people that poke FESCO to approve or do something); the contact
> to/interest in the contributers (and their option) was lost/got a lot worse.

You should have sent this as a totally separate email, rather than pick
on a thread where:

1) As far as I can tell, this is the _first_ time the conflicts have
been mentioned in public _anywhere_.

2) FESCo has recently resolved a few conflicts issues that were brought
to our attention

3) You provide no offer of a solution on how to be non-event driven.
Look at the setup of FESCo as a whole now.  It's primarily SIG focused,
with FESCo overseeing the bulk of those.  In the Extras days, FESCo
_was_ the SIG.

Like you said, there's growing pains.  And unbeknownst to almost
everyone, FESCo has actually had some discussions on how to _change_
it's model to be a more contributory body rather than an approval/rubber
stamp committee.  It's just that even among FESCo there isn't a general
consensus on how to do that, because as Fedora in general has grown more
diverse, so has it's governing body.  So having FESCo focus solely on
development or marketing or infrastructure isn't going to benefit anyone
in the long run.

We're working on it.  Have patience.  Yes, have more patience than what
we've already asked for in the past.  Or offer suggestions.  Your rant
has been heard, and it has valid points.

josh


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