On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But on the other hand the those three Red Hat employees that got elected had > a big advantage: they did a lot (not all!) of their Fedora work during their > work time. That's not right or wrong, it's just the way it is afaics. > > Which brings me to the point: Maybe doing public elections to form the Board > is not the right thing to do as Red Hat employees that work on Fedora have a > big advantage accidentally. Maybe other way are better then a election. Or > we need something like the gnome board style: limit the maximum numbers of > people from one company (whatever company that is). I am sympathetic to the argument that deep involvement correlates with exposure and better recognition. However, I would also suggest that its a damn good thing to have people paid to deal with Fedora on the board. My volunteer status makes me some what impotent when it comes to driving issues forward consistently considering the tenuous nature of my time commitment. The answer isn't necessarily limiting the involvement of paid time people in the election process. The answer maybe finding more ways to get people paid for working inside of the Fedora project.. above and beyond what Red Hat can support directly. Or the answer maybe doing a better job of giving new candidates a platform to speak with regard to topical concerns or new ideas. If we rely too heavily on a body of previous contribution, we are going to be short changing people with new ideas. -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
