Review queue/FESCo after the merge

[Hans de Goede]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:16:36 +0100
> Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:34:16 +0100
>>> Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3) In the extras days I had the feeling of having some control over what FESCo
>>>>     does, today I feel that certain groups within Fedora (*cough* release
>>>>     engineering *cough*) are indepent islands, not that these groups are not
>>>>     doing great work, but they don't seem controlled in any democratic way.
>>>>
>>>> 1 and 2 are not factors which can be controlled by Fedora, 3 however can. I 
>>>> believe its important to fix 3, as that will make joining the government of 
>>>> Fedora much more appealing.
>>> Could you elaborate on what you see the problems being?  And possible
>>> solutions?
>>>
>> Some less spoonfeeding of decisions and more discussion in public instead of 
>> presenting pre-cooked proposals the entire circle of power already agrees on, 
>> would help greatly here.
>>
>> Look at it this way, Fedora is all about Freedom, but since the merger the 
>> Freedom for contributers (esp. packagers) has been greatly reduced. Take the 
>> new release engineering proposals for example, I have some ideas about this, 
>> but the entire release engineering crowd had already precooked there ideas and 
>> unanimously disagreed with mine, or atleast that is how I perceived this.
> 
> Perhaps I missed this thread somewhere.  Can you point me at it?  As
> far as I know, all of the Rel-Eng proposals were drafted by Jesse,
> posted on fedora-devel for discussion, and then approved by rel-eng and
> then FESCo.
> 
>> Most typically of all this I guess is this alinea: This will probably be my 
>> last mail in this thread, as I see no use in continuing this dicussion, why?
>> Because I no longer believe that discussions like this will cause any changes.
> 
> I hope that isn't the case.  I'm genuinely interested in what you're
> trying to point out.
> 

Please see my reply to Jesse's post and also Thorstens reply,

Regards,

Hans