Tuesday May 1 Fedora Board Meeting topics

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Bill Nottingham schrieb:
> Max Spevack (mspevack at redhat.com) said: 
>> (1) Thorsten's draft proposal suggesting a division of responsibility 
>> between the Board and FESCO is worth people's time reading.
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/FESCoAndBoard
>>
>> My guess is we can probably get some email list discussion of it prior to 
>> tomorrow's meeting, and then hash out in IRC any of the biggest concerns.
> 
> Considering it's 9 hours to the meeting and no responses... :)

Well, I'd like to see this topic solved soon, but one (or two) week more
or less doesn't do much harm imho.

In other words: F7 is IMHO at atm more important than this governance
issue. But maybe we can at least make some process meanwhile.

> One thing that has popped up to me is that if it's the 'Fedora Engineering
> Steering Committee'... doesn't Docs then fall under FESCo? (I'm not
> saying it definitely *needs* to, but it would be the logical place for
> it.)

/me thinks about it for a while

I'd say docs should stay separate. There are some areas where
engineering tasks and work from the docs group are closely related
(release notes for example), but well, that IMHO not enough reasons to
get it under the hood of FESCo.

If one wants to put Docs below FESCo then maybe Infrastructure should be
under FESCo's hood as well; then we come to the point where we could get
  rid of FESCo again and let the Board do everything what FESCo should
do (²).

CU
thl

(¹) -- as we call a lot simply Fedora these days it seems to me it might
be better to add "the Distro", "the Project" or "the Package Repository"
when mentioning the term "Fedora"... ;-)

(²) -- We could go that way (get rid of FESCo and let the Board handle
the coordination of all groups directly) -- but when we discussed the
FESCo successor for the merged world it seemed to me people wanted to
keep FESCo around as it worked well in the "old" Extras days