Hi! Paul W. Frields schrieb: > On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 20:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Paul W. Frields schrieb: >>> 1/ We need to get away from substituting "community members" for >>> "non-Red Hat employees." Red Hatters are community members too, and the >>> unspoken implication is that there is a big wall there. The very fact >>> that we're combining Core and Extras shows how much this factionism has >>> dwindled over the past three years. >> Well, I agree with that in general. But I suspect if we don't have a "at >> leat xx% need to be non-redhatters" rule a lot of people will say "this >> is just another round in the never ending Red Hat game where they say to >> get the community involved without giving them rights". I'd like to >> avoid that. Any better idea? > Sorry, I should have been more clear -- I just had a concern with the > wording. I think when we mean, "non-Red Hat employees," we should use > those words, since "community members" (in my mind) includes Red Hatters > and non-Red Hatters. Okay, will re-word as outlined. > [...] >>>> * If there is deadlock in a voting the decision is either deferred and >>>> brought back up in the next meeting or it is presented to the FPB for >>>> further discussion/guidance. >>> Is there a reason you went for an even number of seats? With an odd >>> number, naturally the majority of seats have to be held either by Red >>> Hat employees or not. >> And that's what I wanted to avoid. > But an election is likely to produce a majority one way or the other, > unless you want exactly 50% each of Red Hat and non-Red Hat folks. (And > I would bet the majority by election, in the absence of some other > controlling regulation, is likely to result in non-RH folks outnumbering > the RH ones.) Hmm, all I wanted to avoid is that more than 50% of the members are from Red Hat as a lot of people won't like that. > I don't think it's a big worry either way, Agreed; we in FESCo until now tried to find consensus where at least nobody said "-1". That won't work that easy in the FPCSC, but I think we generally should avoid even situations where 9 people support a proposal while 7 are against it. So I think a 8 vs. 8 is not a big deal and if it really happens we can forward the issue to the FPC as that might be the best in such a situation in any case ;) > since there's > probably more chance of one group's members disagreeing among themselves > than there is for the groups to go all West Side Story on each other. :-) >>> But the veto rights assigned to special seats and >>> the chair should offset any worries of the minority group. >> Hmmm. I still prefer a even number of seats to void problems from the >> start -- nobody should be forced to use the veto rights to often. > So did you mean we should have *exactly* 50% each Red Hat and non-Red > Hat seats, as opposed to "at least 50% [non-Red Hat] community members"? No, if we run into 50% each Red Hat and non-Red Hat seats -- fine. If we have 55% non-Red Hat seats vs 45% from Red Hat -- fine for me, too. All I want to prevent is 45% non-Red Hat seats vs 55% from Red Hat ;) But I can also accept hardcoding 50% for both sides if people want that. A uneven number of seats, too, if people prefer that. > [...] CU thl _______________________________________________ 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
