On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a > >> limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, > >> whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of > >> their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the > >> Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected > >> position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? > > > > The point of the 75% is to keep all the Red Hat seats or all the > > community seats from turning over at one time in a single election. In > > other words, this measure assures some extra continuity. AFAIK Max's > > position is not an elected one; it's a paid position inside Red Hat and > > not subject to election. We can't really elect someone for Red Hat to > > put on salary, but we need that position at the top of the Board to help > > drive action in the company when needed. I thought I had written that > > in the plan, but I see now that revision was lost in all my rearranging. > > I'll get it back in. This would better be discussed after Max returns > > from vacation, so hold that thought until then. > > Right. So then do we need a elected lead? I don't think so; that's Max's job. Otherwise it's just adding another level of middle management. But hey, I could be wrong. > >> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > >> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > >> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > >> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > >> a requirement might be abused. > > > > How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > > Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > > objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > > Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. Other than "cladone," then, and in "approved" status in the additional group. OK, I'll buy that for a dollar, +1. > >> 6) Unclear on what a 2/3 majority vote by "community" means. Who is the > >> community here? I believe 2/3 majority vote by just the board is enough > >> to decide. > > > > The community is the eligible voters. I should make that more clear. A > > governing body shouldn't be able to unilaterally change election rules; > > that's pretty much a central tenet of voting rights. Dictators for > > life, anyone? No, let's make sure the community retains as much say as > > possible. > > So what is the procedure for community to bring a change? That's a good question. Referenda normally need a specific trigger point, like signatures on a petition. What is a reasonable trigger, ten percent of the eligible voters? Fifteen? More? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
