Jared Smith steps down as Fedora project leader

How about using the same standards that already used to appoint the Fedora board members.

They are elected by Fedora community members, except for one (?) seat appointed by Red Hat. Well, I guess one could argue that since there's only one position of leader, this standard is already applied: Red Hat appoints one, and the remaining are elected. But although mathematically correct, this wouldn't be a very honest argument, now would it? :-)

Now, please note I'm not saying the leader must be elected democratically by the community for Fedora to be a community project. It is however a measure of how much control over the project Red Hat wishes to withhold from the community. Maybe it would avoid such undesirable comparisons with the democratically-elected project leaders in democratic community projects if the position had a different title, say “community hoarder for Red Hat”. That would be not only more accurate, but also leave room for the community to choose their own leaders, which any actual community *will* naturally do, regardless of whatever sponsors wish and whatever positions it controls under whatever title.