On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Appointments allow for the selection of individuals/leaders/experts/liasons in areas which are anticipated to be emerging/critical/focal/overlooked in the upcoming year or to otherwise balance out the composition of the Board to broaden the board's onboard experience pool. In my experience, the appointments are effectively done by Board consensus based on FPL proposals. If of the _elected_ members of the board gave push back about a specific appointment that was proposed by the FPL, I would expect it to result in some review and most likely another choice. I think there is value continuing that practise, and perhaps formalizing the role the sitting Board members play in accepting the FPL proposals for appointments. But there is certainly room to reduce the number of appointed seats down from four to three or two. I would keep two appointed seats around. But instead of moving some appointed seats to elected seats.. what if you just chop off one or two seats completely and drop the Board down to 7 official members plus the FPL. I'm really not sure our elections process can really handle more elected seats. I'd much rather see an elections process that can sustain up to at least twice the number candidates than their are seats. Adding more seats does not mean we get more high quality candidates standing up for election. -jef _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
