Re: thl: What I want in a chair

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: That's OK. The following is not. "Too many secrets", what happend to Fedora's original leitmotiv of full transparency? Sure, some things are discussed in PM, but defining a role as such and even twice? I would go the opposite direction and define the chair as accounting to the committee and asking the committee for any stealth operations. Wow, not much special powers, but he decides on when what gets voted? No. These votings have shown that there were two items that you personally objected against over two months and did all that was in your power to avoid getting it to a vote. These items even made us have a steering committee from your preferred "we decide on consensus"-model (so it really is an irony, that originally you supported an anarchy-model and now you push to a presidency model), so we could finalize them with a vote. But you continued to block voting and raising bars, producing semi-technical arguments until finally the votes had the outcome you desired. So, will such a powerful chairman manage this better? From your POV, if you get elected to be the chair, certainly, from my POV it will become even more difficult to get anything voted lest even to have a vote pass. Last time we needed two months to get to the vote, what will it be with a Thorsten as solely empowered to issue votings? Two years? No, thanks. I think the very bad handling of these votes show that we need a more democratic and open system where everyone in the committee (or even the SIG) can issue votings, not that a chairman can block these to his liking. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net