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.
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.
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.
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. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (6.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org