RFC: FESCo Future

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Wed Apr 26 04:52:02 UTC 2006

Am Dienstag, den 25.04.2006, 20:01 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:40:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 25.04.2006, 19:13 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > > If fesco feels on some specific issue at hand that it is too small in
> > > numbers to make a decision it can always escalate to the next larger
> > > entity to get more opinions like it is happening now.
> > 
> > I would prefer if nearly all discussion would be on public
> > places. Yes, that leads to sometimes endlessly discussion like this
> > [...]. But openness IMHO is more important.
> I wasn't suggesting on going behind doors, I completely agree on
> transparency and openness towards the outside of fesco.
> A model that may keep fesco workload low could be the following:
> o the community/fesco has some suggestions, these are evaluated by
>   fesco and discussed with the community with a given time cut-off,
>   where fesco has to come to a conclusion. All this happens in public,
>   but if the discussion doesn't reach a consensus you have the time
>   cut-off, where fesco members simply vote on the issue.
> o When a decision is made to attack something then fesco can decide to
>   create a task force to actually perform the work, e.g. outsource the
>   workload, and move on.
> o More often than not these task forces will be people from fesco or
>   at least headed by them who should gather forces from the community,
>   e.g. by calling for volunteers on a list this this one.
> Does that make any sense? [...]

Yes, something like this makes sense. But I still think we need at least
13 members because I got the impression in the past months that each
"task force" really wants (and maybe needs) a bit guidance or help from
at FESCo. And more people can guide more task forces.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list