FESCo election nominations now open

inode0 inode0 at gmail.com
Thu May 21 17:08:02 UTC 2009

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:08:58PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>On 05/21/2009 08:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> IMO, it made sense only during the time when it was a steering committee
>>>> for the Fedora Extras repository. Now FESCo duties are broad and I don't
>>>> see why someone only involved with artwork, L10N or documentation but
>>>> not packaging shouldn't be a leader.
>>> That would make sense if they were making decisions and guidance over
>>> those groups, only I don't think they are.
>>FESCo has grown from being a group concerned only about packages in a
>>add-on repository into something much larger. FESCo is responsible for
>>all technical decisions in Fedora including those that affect these groups.
> Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what technical decisions effect artwork
> or translations or the management of documentation?
> I cannot remember ever dealing with anything involving artwork in my entire
> tenure in FESCo.  Documentation is impacted from a content point of view, but
> they have their own committee and aside from the Feature stuff FESCo doesn't
> really have any direct impact on them.  Similarly for translation.

Well, letting a much broader segment of the Fedora community vote
causes a disconnect with me. If they aren't "fit" to run for an open
seat why are they "fit" to elect those who are?

I think the question of whether being in the packager group is still
really relevant is a fair question to reflect on. I'm not suggesting
the requirement no longer makes sense, but I haven't really heard a
reason why it does yet.

I think it is also fair to reflect on the composition of the
electorate and whether FAS+1 really makes sense for FESCo elections.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list