Paul W. Frields wrote:
The problem at hand was the perceived dominance by full-time Fedora people on the Board. People who spend their entire $DAYJOB as well as their spare time on Fedora are automatically very involved and visible. That can translate directly to votes on the basis of name recognition, which really disadvantages people who are very involved, but in a somewhat more limited fashion because they don't have the luxury of doing Fedora all day every day. (Maybe a similar advantage would go to someone unemployed, but let's not argue that for right now.) ;-) As a secondary note, the people who do spend their entire $DAYJOB on Fedora are extremely likely to be Red Hat folks. In an average election then, we generate the *perception* that Red Hat is still stacking the Board. The idea of term limits came up as a way to limit the effects of $DAYJOB on this process to some extent, while not shutting people from Red Hat out based on their $DAYJOB, either.
I think there's a big distinction between RHT employees paid to work on Fedora full time and RHT employees who aren't. Perhaps a better way to solve this problem would be to limit the number of concurrently serving people from a given business unit within RHT. And possibly move to an internal election rather than seemingly random appointments.
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
