RFC: FESCo Future

[Callum Lerwick]

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 05:33 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> I would prefer the GPG signed method.
> It seems like the best way to ensure that there isn't ballot stuffing
> going on.

Yes. The thing to realize is you don't *have* to check signatures right
away. If we all vote with GPG signed emails, it can still serve as an
audit trail should anyone want to check up on it later.

Though I do agree a "Meritocracy, not democracy" philosophy. Having
existing FESCo members appoint replacements is possibly a good way to do
this. However there needs to be some kind of checks and balances.
Perhaps the existing FESCo can nominate new members, and the community
can confirm or veto. (Which still likely involves voting which makes me
wonder if this would really be substantially different. Oh well.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060427/15c77ae5/attachment.sig>