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

[Ralf Corsepius]

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.

Ralf