On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:35:33 -0700
John Poelstra <poelstra(a)redhat.com> wrote:
...snip...
The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
and our ability to release on time. As the group responsible for
guiding the technical direction of our releases I think this is
something they should be more involved in. I'd be glad to help
gather data they might need to do this and there might be others who
would be willing to help too.
I would love to. Can you show me the 28 hour days so I have some extra
hours? :)
Seriously tho, I think many of the FESCo folks _DO_ stay involved in
lots of things, some of them might not be as visible as people think
they would be. Or did you mean at some higher level?
I'm suggesting more proactive leadership from FESCo and clear
initiatives to take Fedora to the next level versus only being
responsible for approving features, proven packagers, and policy
matters.
This is also my vision for the Fedora Board.
I think move involvement wherever we can get it great, but I don't
think we should try and force people to do X hours of work on Y.
Also, if we want to require fesco and/or the board to be more involved
and proactive, we should note these requirements for the next election.
A possible idea for the next cycle:
- Wait until we have the list of approved features.
- Divide them up amoung fesco and have a 'point contact' for each that
is a fesco member.
- Each member is responsible for testing/tracking/talking to the
feature owner and getting them what they need to get things done as
well as knowing if something is not ready/etc.
I don't know how feasible this is given the large list of features
however.
kevin