On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:24:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >From the meeting, reworded to start discussion. > > Currently the Fedora board is made of 9 members with 4 of them being > appointed. What are the benefits of this arrangement, and is there a > path where the Board could move to being completely elected? > Pros of appointment: * The FPL can balance out the Board with alternate viewpoints from people who might not be popular Cons of appointment: * The FPL can potentially exert a tremendous amount of power via appointment. If one issue matters a lot to them, they can get within 1 vote of a majority by appointing people who agree with them. Notes: * In the Max Spevack era, the Board was pushed away from making decisions for two reasons: 1) FESCo was deemed to be the body that understood the technical issues at hand and therefore the body that should make most of the decisions regarding Fedora. 2) The Board was not all elected and therefore didn't have as much of a "mandate from the people". In the Paul Frields era, the Board started to make many more decisions. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing as they've trampled all over reason #1 above but being fully elected would help to alleviate reason #2. * Basically, the power of appointment gives a lot of power to a canny FPL to push their most pressing agenda items. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you agree with the FPL's vision or disagree. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp0XMyCEhKQj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
