Ben Walton <[email protected]> writes: > Excerpts from Peter FELECAN's message of Fri Nov 19 04:45:53 -0500 2010: > >> vision should matter also. Hence the community concept vs. a sort of >> autocratic organization. Let that last one for Fortune 500 entities. > > I know this wasargued against the time someone put it forward , but I > think the release manager should be a) an elected position and b) a > position that is mutually exclusive from any board position. It may > make sense to have the election for the release manager > straddle/overlap the board election so that each release manager would > see two boards and vice versa. > > As long as the elected person enforces the policies as laid out, and > works to improve or clarify them where necessary, there is no reason > this wouldn't work.
The policies should be defined and agreed upon by the maintainers community. When that is done, the policies must be enforced by tools which verify their application and validates a package for release. Hence, no need for a human release manager. This was discussed and agreed upon by 8 active members of the foundation. Maybe a call for vote on this issue is due but not before the new board election. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
