On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Christopher Aillon <caillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Luis Villa wrote: >> >> It seems to me that a term limit would just get a different set of >> full-timers on the board. If full-timers are the problem (and I agree >> that they might be) you might consider instead a cap on the number of >> people who work on fedora full time. The GNOME Board does something >> similar (no more than 40% of seats be held by any one company) and it >> seems to work pretty well for us. > > In the event that more than 40% of the Board's elected membership is from > one company, how do you bring it down to 40%? If X people from the company can be on the board, and X+N are elected, then the first X people from the company and the next N votegetters (who would not otherwise have been elected) are put on the board. I'm admittedly not sure how this would work with the staggered Fedora board. > My big concern is that there are many parts of Red Hat which have legitimate > reasons to want to have some board membership, and having the full-timers > who are most in the public eye get the popularity vote is pretty unfair to > people from the RHEL, JBoss, etc. groups who may wish to participate. Well, right. I think you're definitely better off resolving the problem by making it easier for non-fulltimers/non-RHers to be on the board, instead of making it harder for those people to stay on. But if you have to choose the latter, I'm just suggesting a different way to do it. Luis _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
