On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Eric Christensen <[email protected]>wrote:
> I take exception that openness was a casualty of this whole process. I > hope this thing comes together well but we can't let this type of thing > happen in the future. We have a process for this type of thing for a > reason. Openness does not have to be thrown out just to suit a timetable. > There is rarely a case in Fedora where something is so expedient that decisions have to be made without community involvement. I can only think of one or two such incidents, and they were related to security concerns. I have to agree with Eric here -- openness and transparency seem to be a casualty of this process. When I first saw this thread, I immediately asked myself why FAmSCo (or the Fedora Board) wasn't involved in these decisions. (If FAmSCo and/or the Board were involved in the discussions, please pardon my ignorance -- I couldn't find any references on the Ambassadors list or the Advisory Board list. Not to beat the topic to death, but the fact that a Board member had to ask on this list to find out what the plans were says a lot.) To quote John Poelstra, "surprise is the exact opposite of engagement". As an aside, I'll also point out that the short time frame makes it difficult for additional sponsors to help with the conference costs. For example, I've made sure that my current employer sets aside some money to help sponsor FUDCon each year, but since my budget was set it January, I don't have anything set aside for Flock. I'll do what I can to try to both support and attend, but it's going to be difficult. -- Jared Smith
_______________________________________________ fudcon-planning mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fudcon-planning
