Re: Fesco membership policies
how about supporters like e.g. the irc support group? * technical background: yes, * have to suffer the sins of others: yes, * have a different point of view on various changes and ideas: yes, * are closer to the user base and their common problems: yes kind regards, Rudolf Kastl -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to a subset of the people under fesco's pervue. There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate gets elected. Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here? Sounds reasonable to me, is changes to FESCo something that needs to be approved by the Board? (adding f-a-b mailing list for clarification). Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On 11/14/2011 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrettmj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to a subset of the people under fesco's pervue. There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate gets elected. Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here? Sounds reasonable to me, is changes to FESCo something that needs to be approved by the Board? (adding f-a-b mailing list for clarification). Peter Multidisciplinary membership is good. However, please keep a balance in that no one group is over represented. Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community? Should provide a nice balance to the technical side. -- Regards, OldFart -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel clydekunkel7...@cox.net wrote: On 11/14/2011 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrettmj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to a subset of the people under fesco's pervue. There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate gets elected. Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here? Sounds reasonable to me, is changes to FESCo something that needs to be approved by the Board? (adding f-a-b mailing list for clarification). Peter Multidisciplinary membership is good. However, please keep a balance in that no one group is over represented. That wasn't really the point. It was just about who is eligible to be elected. No per group quotas. Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community? Should provide a nice balance to the technical side. That does not make sense. Why should a non-technical member be in the body that make technical decisions? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to a subset of the people under fesco's pervue. There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate gets elected. Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here? Sounds reasonable to me, is changes to FESCo something that needs to be approved by the Board? (adding f-a-b mailing list for clarification). This is an election policy - and traditionally those have completely been within the purview of the body to which they apply(e.g. this is all FESCo's bailiwick, no need for the Board to meddle) I would caution about imminent changes to an election policy now that the process has already begun. (e.g., nominations are now over, so changing the rules at this point about who is eligible should be carefully considered, perhaps any changes put in place could have an effective date after the current elections cycle.) ((actually - meta-note here - FESCo doesn't follow the same nomination period that the other elected bodies do, per their election policy they can nominate themselves up to 3 days before voting commences[0], so perhaps that isn't too painful to change - however, I don't think anyone has actually acted according to those guidelines in some time, perhaps that should also be considered for change by FESCo as well) --David [0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy#Candidates -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:19:50PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to a subset of the people under fesco's pervue. There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate gets elected. Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here? Sounds reasonable to me, is changes to FESCo something that needs to be approved by the Board? (adding f-a-b mailing list for clarification). Which option sounds reasonable? ;-) Traditionally, Board approval is not needed here and I don't think I personally would want to see that change at this point in time (not broke, don't fix). -Toshio pgp4r3jdBfxPC.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 16:15:05 +, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Something that was brought up at the last fesco meeting is that fesco membership is currently restricted to members of the packaging group. That's arguably overly restrictive - fesco is intended to be the body with technical oversight over the entire project, not merely packaging, and in that situation it seems odd to restrict membership to a subset of the people under fesco's pervue. There's a few things we can do here. We can keep the status quo. We can add new groups such as qa. Or we can open it to the entire project and just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate gets elected. Anyone have opinions on what we should be doing here? I'd like to see it opened up a bit. I think at least some people in the QA team have a strong technical background and would be good to have on FESCO. The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters is a bit broad and its future is in question. One possible solution is to start using the qa group to track the core members of the qa team. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On 11/14/2011 06:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters is a bit broad and its future is in question. One possible solution is to start using the qa group to track the core members of the qa team. So the QA group will be restored to it's previous functionality along with it's members right We have kept it very hard to not make any kind of distinction in the QA community everybody's treated equal no one is better then the next man and everybody have to follow the same procedures while having as little entry level as possible and now you are proposing that we shatter that by reintroducing team elite and label people part of core or not part of core. That alone is something that needs to be discussed with the QA community itself. By the way there arent any official ruling body of QA and those that are doing most the work a.k.a so called core members of the QA team are the once subscribed to the Red Hat check and are doing so as a part of their $dayjob and perhaps on their free time as well I dont know. The real issue here is that it seems to be popular amongst candidates to slap some kind of QA statement into their candidacy even if those individual have never been part of the QA community et all atleast not to any large extent and that has somehow be tied with the QA Community general. People that are involved usually don't need any introduction or be tied to any subgroup within the project their track record speaks for themselves so in all fairness either keep status quo or drop all requirements and let user keep what ever they voted over themselves as a result of that. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On 11/14/2011 05:50 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community? Very strong no from me. FESCO is a technical committee, supposed to provide strategic technical decisions and guidance - It is NOT meant to to deal with other topics, such as e.g. politics or marketing. Should provide a nice balance to the technical side. Fesco exists to make technical decisions. Exactly. The people who are members should be competent to make those decisions based on a thorough understanding of the issue, so I don't think having non-technical membership is ideal. Exactly. However, people (technical or otherwise) should feel able to provide their views in either the fesco ticketing system or at a meeting. That a completely different question, which I don't consider to be related to your initial question/remark, but to be a detail of FESCO's daily routine/channels of communication. I'd hope that we're not making decisions that are seen as user-hostile, but if we are we really would be interested in hearing about it. Well, if you ask me, ... FESCO has a long history of having drawn decisions which do not match with my vision of a community driven Linux distro and my hopes on Fedora. But that's just my individual view. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
Am Montag, den 14.11.2011, 12:31 -0500 schrieb Clyde E. Kunkel: Multidisciplinary membership is good. However, please keep a balance in that no one group is over represented. Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community? I'd say no. Not only because I think that we need technical people to understand technical decisions, but also for the very same argument you just gave: Keep a balance in that no group is over represented. The ambassadors group for example is huge and could easily get a lot of their candidates into FESCo. Don't get me wrong: I like having ambassadors in FESCo, I am one myself and a member of FESCo, too. But I am in FESCo as a packager and so should be others: Whoever wants to run for a technical body needs to be member of at least one technical group. Regards, Christoph -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Or we can open it to the entire project and just assume that the electorate will ensure that nobody inappropriate gets elected. I don't see the harm in letting the electorate decide this. If you're not a packager and you somehow manage to get voted in, great. Maybe the technical decisions will be over your head and you'll have to bow out... or maybe you'll do an awesome job. I think the system can correct itself over time. - Ken -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fesco membership policies
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 19:35 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 11/14/2011 06:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters is a bit broad and its future is in question. One possible solution is to start using the qa group to track the core members of the qa team. So the QA group will be restored to it's previous functionality along with it's members right We have kept it very hard to not make any kind of distinction in the QA community everybody's treated equal no one is better then the next man and everybody have to follow the same procedures while having as little entry level as possible and now you are proposing that we shatter that by reintroducing team elite and label people part of core or not part of core. That alone is something that needs to be discussed with the QA community itself. By the way there arent any official ruling body of QA and those that are doing most the work a.k.a so called core members of the QA team are the once subscribed to the Red Hat check and are doing so as a part of their $dayjob and perhaps on their free time as well I dont know. The real issue here is that it seems to be popular amongst candidates to slap some kind of QA statement into their candidacy even if those individual have never been part of the QA community et all atleast not to any large extent and that has somehow be tied with the QA Community general. People that are involved usually don't need any introduction or be tied to any subgroup within the project their track record speaks for themselves so in all fairness either keep status quo or drop all requirements and let user keep what ever they voted over themselves as a result of that. I don't think Bruno was really *proposing* it, just floating it as a possibility. Obviously, if FESCo were to say it would allow 'QA members' to serve on FESCo, we'd need *some* way of identifying who is 'in' QA, or else the policy would be an effective dead letter. Having said that, though, I mostly agree with Johann's concerns - I like the lack of a formal membership system for QA, partly for the reasons Johann cites and also just because it avoids unnecessary paperwork, which I'm always in favour of. Making sure every QA is process is entirely open to participation with the max requirement being a Bugzilla account and a FAS account has worked quite well for us so far and obviated the need for complicated entrance procedures, special handshakes and the like. If we _have_ to change that for a good reason, we can, but we do like to keep things as lightweight as possible. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
