Thanks Paul :) I look forward to hearing how this develops and think it's definitely a step in the right direction. I still have some reservations about the system, even if the majority is reversed. The problems I still see with this, and whether these are in any way valid I have no idea but I'd love to hear some feedback about it, are thus: Fedora claims to be a community distribution that *is* more than a beta for RHEL. I believe the quality of the product that our community creates is a clear expression of this fact; the make-up of the board, however, does not. With things as they stand, Red Hat has an overarching influence on the direction of Fedora and has enormous influence in the direction of both Fedora's development and community. Even if the majority were reversed, with the chair having a veto and Red Hat remaining as the single biggest presence on the board, this could remain the case. I trust Red Hat based on their previous actions, and I trust the members of the board as a result of the work that I've done with you and all that I've read. Should these matters be left entirely to trust, however? While a dramatic comparison, the founders of the US didn't think so, and neither do I think RMS did when he first formulated the GPL. Another significant question, beyond trust is, can Fedora truly be seen as (or truly be) a distribution that is run and produced by the community, that is more than a beta for RHEL, while a single company maintains the most significant influence over the project. Another interesting comparison is to England. We have an entirely elected lower house, the Commons, while our upper house is partially elected, partially appointed, and partially made up of hereditary peers - the Lords. The current debate here is whether hereditary and appointed peers are an acceptable state of affairs in a modern democracy, especially following a recent scandal where the government was found to have appointed some peers following large donations to the party. I believe it's a similar question in the Fedora Project (that's not to say I believe anybody currently involved in Fedora or Red Hat is likely to engage in similar actions!), although interestingly we have no wholly elected lower house who holds greater power than the upper house; in fact, it's the reverse! That Red Hat is our financial backer is a significant part of the equation, but it's not the only one. Without the time contributed by members of the community, the money would mean nothing, especially in a distribution where we hold as a matter of pride that over half our packages are maintained by those outside Red Hat. In my opinion, this time is as valuable a commodity as the money put in by Red Hat and as such questions the justification for the chair being both solely appointed by Red Hat and having a veto. I think this sums up my concerns about the current system. As I've tried to stress, I have no idea of their validity and I hope they don't offend anybody. I have complete faith in the current board and Red Hat as things stand, and I admire the work done by all enormously; this is the reason I choose to spend my time contributing to this project in whatever way I can. Best wishes all, Jon _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
