FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-26-2008, 03:35 PM
Thorsten Leemhuis
 
Default FESCO (was: Orphaning package)

Some introduction words: The Fedora-world changed a lot due to the Core
and Extras merge and thus FESCo changed a lot as well (and had to).

Yes, *I'm* totally unhappy with how FESCo changed and how it works these
days(). But that#s just me and my option -- others seem to be more
happy. And I don't want to blame the current FESCo members how things
evolved. I think it just happened without purpose; in fact I suppose
it's likely that a lot of things might be similar if I would still be in
FESCo(), because FESCo has a whole lot more to do these days. Maybe to
much, especially if you want to keep up with FESCo work as spare-time
contributer.

IOW: Fedora IMHO has growing pains. I mentioned that earlier, tried to
work against that/to improve things without being in FESCo or the board,
but failed to often and thus decided to reduce my Fedora contributions
to a minimum.

On 26.04.2008 15:13, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:48:18 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 11:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 26.04.2008 11:02, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>> In the past, somebody from the old FESCO would have looked into it and
>>>> would have tried to talk to you and the people you have problems with.
>>>> Nowadays, there should also be somebody in the Fedora community or in
>>>> Fedora leadership with interest in keeping people happy and
>>>> cooperative.
>>> Why can't FESCo handle that instead of discussing Fetures over and over?
>>> That how it afaics was supposed to be, as everyone wanted to keep FESCo
>>> when the merge happened because most people back then liked the work
>>> FESCO did (it IMHO could have been a lot better, but that's a different
>>> issue).
>> FESCo can't help if it doesn't know there is a problem.

And that is in fact the biggest problem *I* have with FESCo these days.
FESCo afaics is mostly event driven these days (triggered by releases or
people that poke FESCO to approve or do something); the contact
to/interest in the contributers (and their option) was lost/got a lot worse.

In the Extras days it IMHO was different -- FESCo then of course had to
do some things that were triggered by events as well, but a lot of time
was spend in a "how to improve Extras to make it better for users and
contributers to keep both groups happy (and make them even
happier!)"-mode. For that we were in closer contact with the
contributers (their number of course was smaller and thus it was also
easier).

> That's why I asked _two_ questions. Deleted by Thorsten in the quote,
> however.

I didn't stop anybody from answering those and are interested in the
answers myself, but I found the quoted part more interesting and the
part I wrote was related to it, thus I only quoted that.

Cu
knurd

() -- I mentioned that two or three months ago on FAB already in a
similar discussion. After that I send a mail to a bunch of German
contributers and we discussed things for two or three weeks in private.
I send a summary of that discussion to Paul some weeks ago. A really
short summary afaics would be: Most liked the merge in general (like I
do), but most agreed that things from a contributers point of view got a
lot worse.

() -- an no, I won't run in the next FESCo elections; it's not possible
due to conflicting interest with my day job; that was something
different when FESCo only managed Extras

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 05:21 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default FESCO (was: Orphaning package)

On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 17:35 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 26.04.2008 15:13, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:48:18 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 11:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>> On 26.04.2008 11:02, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >>>> In the past, somebody from the old FESCO would have looked into it and
> >>>> would have tried to talk to you and the people you have problems with.
> >>>> Nowadays, there should also be somebody in the Fedora community or in
> >>>> Fedora leadership with interest in keeping people happy and
> >>>> cooperative.
> >>> Why can't FESCo handle that instead of discussing Fetures over and over?
> >>> That how it afaics was supposed to be, as everyone wanted to keep FESCo
> >>> when the merge happened because most people back then liked the work
> >>> FESCO did (it IMHO could have been a lot better, but that's a different
> >>> issue).
> >> FESCo can't help if it doesn't know there is a problem.
>
> And that is in fact the biggest problem *I* have with FESCo these days.
> FESCo afaics is mostly event driven these days (triggered by releases or
> people that poke FESCO to approve or do something); the contact
> to/interest in the contributers (and their option) was lost/got a lot worse.

You should have sent this as a totally separate email, rather than pick
on a thread where:

1) As far as I can tell, this is the _first_ time the conflicts have
been mentioned in public _anywhere_.

2) FESCo has recently resolved a few conflicts issues that were brought
to our attention

3) You provide no offer of a solution on how to be non-event driven.
Look at the setup of FESCo as a whole now. It's primarily SIG focused,
with FESCo overseeing the bulk of those. In the Extras days, FESCo
_was_ the SIG.

Like you said, there's growing pains. And unbeknownst to almost
everyone, FESCo has actually had some discussions on how to _change_
it's model to be a more contributory body rather than an approval/rubber
stamp committee. It's just that even among FESCo there isn't a general
consensus on how to do that, because as Fedora in general has grown more
diverse, so has it's governing body. So having FESCo focus solely on
development or marketing or infrastructure isn't going to benefit anyone
in the long run.

We're working on it. Have patience. Yes, have more patience than what
we've already asked for in the past. Or offer suggestions. Your rant
has been heard, and it has valid points.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org