On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +1 from me in theory but -1 for actually doing it. There's some practical > problems: > > 1) This artificially gives the the board a much higher chance of being even > more Red Hat based. We have an unfair advantage in that we can spend more > time working on Fedora. Therefore we know more people, have more time to > campaign, make a difference, etc. It's not fair to volunteers and would > skew the board. > > June 2008: 3 out of 3 elected were Red Hat > December 2008: 1 out of 2 were Red Hat > June 2009: 3 out of 3 elected were Red Hat > December 2009: 0 out of 2 were Red Hat > May 2010: 2 out of 3 were Red Hat Yes, we do elect a lot of contributors who are Red Hat employees. So, since I don't know who everyone works for it is hard for me to calculate, how many non-Red Hat people have been appointed? I do know three off the top of my head but two of them would have been elected had one more seat been open. It is funny that this is a reason to retain the appointed seats. Certainly if we did not elect Red Hat employees that would be a reason to retain them. > 2) We don't always have many people run for the Board. It can be a > struggle to convince people to run. Getting appointed to for balance is > helpful and practical. Getting more people to run is one of the reasons I want to do this. I do not believe Toshio is the only person choosing to not run because of the current structure . John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
