On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 . Remind me again... who is Toshio's employer? And I'm really not sure its appropriate to make significant governance changes on the _belief_ that a significant group of qualified _external_ volunteers are withholding candidacy based on the existence of a minority of appointed board seats. Do you _know_? Lets get people on record and be _sure_ we know why people aren't running before we project our own feelings about governance onto the situation. I'll tell you why I haven't run again as an external volunteer... my job status changed and I'm doing significantly more travelling to far flung places on the planet with diminished ethernet capacity. And as a result of that lifestyle change I cannot in good concious run for an elected position which would require attentiveness. As much as I'd love to be part of a phone meeting while in McMurdo Station just to waste the satellite bandwidth, its not appropriate use of US tax dollars. I personally have zero issue with having 4 appointed seats, 2 rotating out with each election period. I personally have zero issue with the FPL having veto power. But I do have an issue with the assumption that more elected seats automatically means more external members being voted in. Right now we have more externals eligible to vote and to run for seats and yet we are consistently voting in Red Hatters at a higher proportion that would be expected by their percentage of membership in the voting contributor base. You need to understand that this means that as we add more elected seats the probabilities are such that we are going to continue to vote in more Red Hat people as seats open up. If they goals are to increase external participation in governance more elected seats is not a clear way forward on that goal. Be clear about the goals... and pick implementations that strive to achieve those goals and are informed by the data we have in hand. What I fear is happening here is that there are a lot of unfounded assumptions being made about elected positions being intrinsically better than appointed positions and I take issue with that. I've seen no reasoned argument so far set forward that would suggest to me that moving to more elected seats is a way forward to mitigate any particular concern. -jef _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
