----- Original Message ----- > 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 even the Board... As otherwise inode0 would not ask, I'm not aware of any discussion neither :( It's hard to understand the reasons why it was handled this way (see my mail), it seems everything is already set and we probably have to accept it but still I'd like to see (once it's out) more community wide discussion, about the format, bar camps, how it should look like. From what I read in this thread I'm not sure what's the goal - if it's that docon or not etc. Jaroslav > -- > Jared Smith > > _______________________________________________ > fudcon-planning mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fudcon-planning _______________________________________________ fudcon-planning mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fudcon-planning
