FESCo future

[Michael Schwendt]

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. Originally, FESCO had been created to
form a small group of people who could get something done. Over time,
FESCO has degraded to a collection of people, who fill seats in multiple
committees and find themselves unable to pursue "FESCO business".

> == 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. Only if the decision
require additional work, this can be delegated to external contributors.
For instance, the final wording of policy documents can be finished with
the assistance of documentation folks.

> 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", 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.