[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

FESCO (was: Re: Orphaning package)

Some introduction words: The Fedora-world changed a lot due to the Core
and Extras merge and thus FESCo changed a lot as well (and had to).

Yes, *I'm* totally unhappy with how FESCo changed and how it works these
days(¹). But that#s just me and my option -- others seem to be more
happy. And I don't want to blame the current FESCo members how things
evolved. I think it just happened without purpose; in fact I suppose
it's likely that a lot of things might be similar if I would still be in
FESCo(²), because FESCo has a whole lot more to do these days. Maybe to
much, especially if you want to keep up with FESCo work as spare-time

IOW: Fedora IMHO has growing pains. I mentioned that earlier, tried to
work against that/to improve things without being in FESCo or the board,
but failed to often and thus decided to reduce my Fedora contributions
to a minimum.

On 26.04.2008 15:13, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:48:18 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 11:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 26.04.2008 11:02, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>> In the past, somebody from the old FESCO would have looked into it and
>>>> would have tried to talk to you and the people you have problems with.
>>>> Nowadays, there should also be somebody in the Fedora community or in
>>>> Fedora leadership with interest in keeping people happy and
>>>> cooperative.
>>> Why can't FESCo handle that instead of discussing Fetures over and over?
>>> That how it afaics was supposed to be, as everyone wanted to keep FESCo
>>> when the merge happened because most people back then liked the work
>>> FESCO did (it IMHO could have been a lot better, but that's a different
>>> issue).
>> FESCo can't help if it doesn't know there is a problem.

And that is in fact the biggest problem *I* have with FESCo these days.
FESCo afaics is mostly event driven these days (triggered by releases or
people that poke FESCO to approve or do something); the contact
to/interest in the contributers (and their option) was lost/got a lot worse.

In the Extras days it IMHO was different -- FESCo then of course had to
do some things that were triggered by events as well, but a lot of time
was spend in a "how to improve Extras to make it better for users and
contributers to keep both groups happy (and make them even
happier!)"-mode. For that we were in closer contact with the
contributers (their number of course was smaller and thus it was also

> That's why I asked _two_ questions. Deleted by Thorsten in the quote,
> however.

I didn't stop anybody from answering those and are interested in the
answers myself, but I found the quoted part more interesting and the
part I wrote was related to it, thus I only quoted that.


(¹) -- I mentioned that two or three months ago on FAB already in a
similar discussion. After that I send a mail to a bunch of German
contributers and we discussed things for two or three weeks in private.
I send a summary of that discussion to Paul some weeks ago. A really
short summary afaics would be: Most liked the merge in general (like I
do), but most agreed that things from a contributers point of view got a
lot worse.

(²) -- an no, I won't run in the next FESCo elections; it's not possible
due to conflicting interest with my day job; that was something
different when FESCo only managed Extras

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]