Christian.Iseli at unil.ch
Mon Jun 2 11:25:43 UTC 2008
Apologies for not participating in last week's meeting: real life got
in the way... I read the #fedora-meeting logs, and thought I'd share
my views here.
I view the board as a political body, and an interface between
corporate sponsors and the Fedora project. They get to deal with money
matters, and have the final word on all Fedora matters. They can
meddle in technical matters if they so wish, but I do not think it is
their mandate. I like spot's approach of saying they tell us "we need
to fly" and provide for some level ground for us to take off. Unless
I'm mistaken, the board head is paid by RH, as is wwoods of QA and f13
of releng. These folks are incredibly useful and dedicated to get each
release off the ground.
I see FESCo as a bunch of elected volunteers that people come to and
ask "is it ok if ..." when they have questions wrt what they can put in
Fedora. FESCo's answer should have arbitration value for all technical
matters. I think FESCo members should also be willing to act as
emergency response team when some fire needs to be put out, e.g. a mass
rebuild needs some manual help to complete.
I do not think it is FESCo's role to come up with ideas of what the
future should be like. I think this kind of creativity is better
served by SIGs or individual contributors.
I agree a lot of FESCo's work is just rubber stamping propositions from
SIGs. But I think someone needs to be there to do it. As Fedora
contributor, I feel better knowing that a bunch of elected volunteers
is manning the deck at all time, watching what's going on and making
sure we are not headed straight into the iceberg.
More information about the fedora-devel-list