On Monday, January 02, 2012 03:26:37 PM Per Jessen wrote:
Rajko M. wrote:
On Monday, January 02, 2012 09:10:08 AM Greg Freemyer wrote: ...
My belief is we have a defacto steering committee. If so, simply documenting the current steering process adds transparency but adds no delays.
It is obvious that steering power exists, although it doesn't show stability, nor complete transparency. Here is my two cents about how it works, and why adding committee is pointless.
I didn't intend that we _add_ a committee, that would indeed be pointless.
There is difference in steering committee that is either appointed or elected, and always internal to organization that created it and steering power that is combination of internal and external elements that have power to steer you.
Release and platform managers are people that we see and they have power to accept or reject software which as end effect will influence distro direction. They both are directly responsible to their company, and indirectly, over the company, to the community. They are also not top execs, so they have to respect general direction those above give. This part is not and never will be transparent as competition would like.
We have been told often enough that there is e.g. no openSUSE organigramm, yet here you are suggesting a entire hidden hierarchy? Surely you are mistaken, but it sounds like a really good argument for introducing an (elected or appointed) SC with the right to veto.
Funny. If you are able to see hidden hierarchy in a public information that you can read in every email by AJ, then I'm not surprised with your proposal about "steering committee". One has to be fairly out of this place not to notice large signature blocks with couple of names and associated functions. The rest of the sentence is just stating obvious for everyone that can read, which I would skip in normal circumstances, but this thread needs closing. It is nothing more then extended fantasy.
Status and activity of upstream projects has steering power, specially of large, complex subsystems. There is no distro that can steer kernel, Xorg, KDE, Gnome, direction as that would mean it has to create branch and take care of the development and maintenance. That is not going to happen. Even smaller projects have power to steer distro direction if they are unique and important.
This is the problem I suggest we try to solve with a SC.
And how would you do that. SC will tell kernel devs what they have to develop, or openSUSE will not use kernel anymore. Well, it will not work. Let we try with something smaller?!
After all above, I'm sure that some steering committee, (board, commission: name it to your liking) will not change landscape unless it controls manpower able to take over existing tasks.
The right to veto is an impressive amount of power.
What a words :) What supports those words? Did you secretly bought out SUSE? That will give you impressive amount of power, at least within SUSE. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org