On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Matt Domsch <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 03:42:55PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: >> >My second observation about the minutes are that board decisions are >> >announced collectively. > > This is actually something I pushed for when we first formed the > Board. While there is discussion, debate, and a healthy exchange of > viewpoints, in the end, when a decision _is_ made, it reflects the > view of the Board as a whole, nearly always by concensus. Individuals > on the Board may of course speak in public about their views on > various points and topics, speaking for themselves, but I don't want > "the Board" decisions to become a US Supreme Court-style 5-4 decision > with dissenters writing their own dissent. Decisions exceedingly > rarely break this way in practice that I've seen, and it only serves > to polarize. IMHO. This is also why, in general, the current FPL > publishes Board decisions. Regardless of the debate, we're still > friends who can work together for a common good, and I feel we need to > present a common, non-polarizing front, which I think we've done a > good job at. I can understand this way of thinking at that time better than I can today. It probably would have had a very negative community response to see a vote of 5-4 where 5 appointed members voted one way and 4 elected members voted the other way. Over time I think things have changed. Red Hat has shown a lot of good will by reducing the number of appointed seats and by appointing community members who don't work for them. The community has shown a lot of good will as well by electing many people who are employed by Red Hat. With the composition of the current board I don't see how a close vote on an issue would be particularly polarizing or traumatic to the community. Rather I see it as the what it is. A close vote on an issue that has some unusual properties, maybe at the edge of the Fedora philosophy. And those are exactly the sorts of cases that are useful to me as a voter. A unanimous vote isn't very interesting. What can I learn from that? >> At what point is the cost too high? My own measure is the amount of time >> to create the minutes exceeds the length of the meeting. > > This is my concern. While I enjoy the IRC meetings, we cover fewer > topics, in less detail, than we do in concalls. Summarizing concalls > is hard work; summarizing with even more detail - ugg. John has done > an admirable job at this, kudos to him. FESCo seems to manage to do most of its business and I believe all of its voting in public. So I'm not getting the sense that adding some inefficiency and inconvenience to the board in the conduct of some part of its business is so insurmountable an obstacle. How strongly do we believe in transparent governance? Opting out when there is a legal or sensitive issue is one thing, opting out because being transparent is more inconvenient than the alternative is another. John _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
