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

Re: leadership (re)fresh

Hash: SHA1

Karsten Wade wrote:
> == Questions ==
> * Elections are a requirement of being a sub-project.  Special
>   interest groups (SIGs) can self-organize as they see fit.  It is a
>   bit unclear what the reason is to choose one over the other.
>   * Do we want to return to elections and maintain our sub-project
>     status?
>   * Do we prefer a looser SIG structure?  If yes, how do we populate
>     and recognize leadership in this group?
> * What is the size and shape of a leadership team?
> * Is there any other form that Docs could or should take that might
>   work better, differently, etc.?
> - Karsten

It is my opinion that the Docs Project should not be a SIG and should
try to remain a "project".  If only by definition, I feel that SIGs are
optional while projects are a requirement or a need.  If only to
generate the Release Notes, I feel that the Docs Project is a need for
Fedora.  Of course we do more than the Release Notes so that bolsters my
feeling that we are an essential part of the Fedora Project.

As to the rest of the questions, I'm not really sure.  I feel that we
can have the structure without it being overly strict.  The best
leadership simply provides direction and resources and allows the
"troops" to march on their own to get the job done which is how this
project has been led in the past and present.  I don't think we need a
panel of twenty but a couple of people to manage specific portions of
the Project might be nice, if not overkill.  I'd be interested to hear
others opinions.

Eric Christensen
E-Mail: sparks fedoraproject org
GPG Fingerprint: CA02 4ACA EB6C 1A76 F0D6  1127 7D04 D240 BD0C 14C1

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


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