how to govern and manage the new combined repository (second proposal from thl)

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb:
> Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb:
>> Quoting Bill from:
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-January/msg00091.html
>>
>>> What's left of the Core Steering Committee
>>> is going to work with the Fedora Board and FESCO to figure out just
>>> how this new combined repository is going to be governed and managed.
>> Yeah, that becomes more an more urgent afaics. The idea was raised to
>> sort this out in a special IRC-meeting and/or conference call with
>> people from the Core Cabal, FESCo and the Board. [...]
> Here is my second proposal:
> New proposal, again with a small graphic attached:
> - FESCo and the Core Cabal (f13 and notting [jeremy is a member of FESCO
> already]) become FTC -- Fedora Technical Committee (the final name still
> needs to be discussed, there are some alternatives floating around).
> That makes 15 Members for now.
> - the FTC sits below the Board and handles all the day to day work and
> the details around the packages and the releases; some of that work get
> delegated to be done by SIGs (Extras has some already that simply
> continue to exist; further create SIGs [even if that means only one or
> two people] for each Spin). Big or long term decisions (roadmaps for
> example) get worked out together by the FTC and the Board.
> - Those four members that are in the Packaging Committee and in FESCo
> now will represent the Packaging Committee in FTC, too. The Packaging
> Committee at the same time becomes a SIG. It will work as before;
> similar how FESCo and the Core Cabal had veto power it's now FTC that
> can block decisions.
> - the FTC will run with a similar scheme how FESCo ran until now (e.g.
> in the open, public meetings, ...)
> - the FTC in the current form has a lifespan until six weeks after F7
> was released. The FTC until then has to work out a plan how FTC will be
> constituted after that (e.g. size, seats [some elected, other
> appointed?], fixed level of community/red hat members, ...) together
> with the Board.

FYI: FESCo in its meeting today agreed that this is the route it wants
to take (notting and jesse were around, too, and did not yell). Could
the board please look at the proposal, discuss it in its tomorrows
meeting and ACK it or if it dislikes parts give feedback if it wants to
see something changed?

BTW, we did not agree on a final name yet. I'll ask fedora-devel-list
and fedora-extras-list for name suggestions. FESCo will discuss the name
issue in this weeks meeting and push hard to find the final name in next
weeks meeting.

CU
thl