Christian Iseli wrote:
Apologies for not participating in last week's meeting: real life got
in the way... I read the #fedora-meeting logs, and thought I'd share
my views here.
I view the board as a political body, and an interface between
corporate sponsors and the Fedora project. They get to deal with money
matters, and have the final word on all Fedora matters. They can
meddle in technical matters if they so wish, but I do not think it is
their mandate. I like spot's approach of saying they tell us "we need
to fly" and provide for some level ground for us to take off. Unless
I'm mistaken, the board head is paid by RH, as is wwoods of QA and f13
of releng. These folks are incredibly useful and dedicated to get each
release off the ground.
From my POV FESCo is essentially an oversight group, keeping tabs
making sure everything is how it should be and at the same time making
sure that in the future the project is on a good pathway to success.
I see FESCo as a bunch of elected volunteers that people come to and
ask "is it ok if ..." when they have questions wrt what they can put in
Fedora. FESCo's answer should have arbitration value for all technical
matters. I think FESCo members should also be willing to act as
emergency response team when some fire needs to be put out, e.g. a mass
rebuild needs some manual help to complete.
Yes, your only too right, and by all means FESCo members should be one
of the first people there to help out, but as you mentioned they are
elected volunteers, they can't be around every single minute of every
day to help out (I'm sure we'd like them to be, and it's something that
can be looked at assuming a more regionally diverse group) I don't see
how we can expect *that* much, at the very least, I expect them to be
active and considerate of issues concerning Fedora.
I do not think it is FESCo's role to come up with ideas of what
future should be like. I think this kind of creativity is better
served by SIGs or individual contributors.
I agree a lot of FESCo's work is just rubber stamping propositions from
SIGs. But I think someone needs to be there to do it. As Fedora
contributor, I feel better knowing that a bunch of elected volunteers
is manning the deck at all time, watching what's going on and making
sure we are not headed straight into the iceberg.
I agree, BUT...
An SIG can't draft every single policy isn't really practical,
contributors like ourselves elect members to FESCo (one our rights as a
contributor) to represent our views to not only rubber-stamp policy
proposals from SIGs but to also ensure that the contributor (our)
'experience' is at it's optimum by passing new policies. For instance
the Sponsors Responsibility Policy (a great step into maintainer retention).
Just some extra cents for the kitty.