On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:28 PM, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Curious no one on the board suggested this as a benefit during the > meeting but I can certainly accept it as one. Shrug. It's happened in the past. It happened when I was on the board. > While I doubt they would want to, if FESCo and FAmSCo each > appointed someone they felt would bring value to board and the FPL > appointed the other two that would go a long way toward alleviating > the problems as well. (I'm not suggesting this, just making a point.) First and foremost that I fundamentally disagree that any of the concerns that have been expressed so far amount to a problem that can be solved in a restructuring of the number of elected seats. I also don't think that a fully elected board is going to do anything to encourage additional people to stand up and run for a position that is effectively asking to be a target for abuse with very little power to actually get anything done beyond the power of persuasion. In reality Infrastructure and FESCo hold far more power to to get crap done. If I were staging a coup I'd put together a coherent slate of candidates and define a platform and take over FESCo not the Board. I think the idea of a fully elected board magically solving perceived inequalities or disinterest... naively quaint and built on the assumption that Fedora works primarily in a top down management structure when it in fact does not. I probably have as much influence as I do now off the board as I did on it...without being shackled to a mandate to listen to everyone else's gripes and trying to find a way forward. That being said, from a project governance standpoint there is certainly room for other subgroups to lobby to have a standing ex-officio member of the Board at Board meetings in order for better internal project communication regardless of the break down of official elected or appointed members. But I want to _see_ those groups lobby and make their case as to why they need to have someone at the meetings all the time and affirm they actually need to work at the board level instead of just getting crap done via normal cross project communication channels. Having an ex-officio member of the infrastructure team present would seem a good idea at times. Having an ex-officio member of FESCo would be a good idea at times... and so and and so on..assuming of course no one on the Board isn't wearing multiple hats and is acting as a liason to a particular group already. Unless newer incarnations of the Board are operating differently, its not fundamentally a vote driven organ of governance. The Board is at its best when its making consensus based decisions, because ultimately all the Board can really do is persuade or forbid...and neither of those powers work very well in a primarily volunteer resources when backing contentious decisions. -jef _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
