FESCo elections

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 07:56 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 13:47 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 06:10 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:35 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 02:33:18PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > 
> > > > So FESCo doesn't really represent the community, because it doesn't 
> > > > really have a political role, but having the technical leaders elected
> > > > nevertheless means that the community is represented in the technical
> > > > decision body.
> > >
> > > Yes, it represents the community in technical matters at the least.
> > 
> > IMO, an elected organ is a bad choice to provide leadership on technical
> > matters, because one can not expect an elected member of an organ to be
> > technically competent. The domain of "elected organs" is "strategic and
> > political decisions", not details.
> 
> Personally, I think that depends on the pool of candidates that are
> allowed for such and election.
> 
> > >   But
> > > you still didn't give me an example of something you feel is "political"
> > > in nature, so I have no idea if FESCo would be involved in those things
> > > or not.
> > 
> > Some random examples:

> > * Decisions on "matter of taste", e.g. decisions on when to exclude a
> > package because of its contents (E.g. US folks tend to get nervous about
> > matters of "depiction of nudity", Europeans tend to get nervous
> > "glorification of violence" (games!), members of non-Western cultures
> > might find other topics offensive).
> 
> To my knowledge, we've never excluded a package based on content unless
> that content was non-free.
We've already had the X-screensaver case :-)

More severe cases are only a matter of time.

> > * Decisions on "freedom of software". E.g. when to allow non-free
> > software and when not (c.f. the non-free firmware case).
> 
> Sure, but that is a higher level issue to be handled by the Board.  For
> example, it was not a specific debate about whether "firmware for the
> frobbitz device" is to be allowed.  It was a decision at a higher level
> of including firmware in general.  And it very much involved legal-ish
> discussion, which is sort of a flag that it needs to head up to the
> Board.
My view is different: Such decisions are mere political.

FESCo had not been empowered to draw such decisions and not been
equipped with the powers to clean up detail.

> > * Decisions on when and how to enforce the "rules of the game".
> 
> You mean adherence to guidelines?
That's one point. Other ones would be submission/review policies,
upgrade/update policies, AWOL handling, EOL'ing packages,
Wiki, setting up deadlines, etc.

>   Yes, FESCo will do this.
> 
> I used an analogy on IRC the other day that might sum up some of the
> Board/FESCo interaction.  It's not complete, but it paints a fairly
> decent picture of how things should work.  The Board decides the higher
> level direction of Fedora, and FESCo takes that and implements it.  If
> the Board were to say "Fedora should be on cell phones", FESCo would
> then oversee the adaptations and implementation of that idea.
My analogy: The board is the government and FESCo is its
administration. 

Do you see much sense a in a government having an elected Tax
Administration? - I don't.

Ralf