On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 06:45:00AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > So. What if we could do better? What if we could make the Board more > representative of Fedora contributors from a composition standpoint? > We have all these other committees and groups already doing the > day-to-day stewardship of the project. We have the Fedora Project > Lead, basically, leading. Maybe we can combine them. Cutting to the > chase, what if the Board was comprised of a representative from each > of: > > FESCo, Docs, Rel-Eng, QA, Ambassadors, Infrastructure, Design, > Marketing, and <open>. > > Each of those committees, which clearly have a large stake and vested > interest in Fedora succeeding, would chose one member to appoint to > their respective Board seat. That person would be responsible for > their group's interaction with the Board and the other groups. > > Some of you might notice the composition proposed is essentially that > of the Release Readiness meetings. This isn't by coincidence. Call > it DevOps or whatever other trendy thing you want, but getting the > stakeholders of something together to discuss the betterment of that > thing just kind of makes sense to me. It also shares ideas with the > Fedora Council idea, which is by coincidence because I discovered that > after I had thought about most of this. Still good to see > commonality. > > The <open> seat could be anything. I don't have a clear group that > should fill it. Maybe it can be appointed to gain valuable insight in > specific areas (though we can always just ask for that insight > anyway). Maybe it could be a representative from the new Product > Workgroups that are being formed. > Being a little more flexible with <open> might be interesting. Instead of just a single seat, pull in a representative from the groups needed for solving what the current project problems are. Don't want to derail this with something radical if this is a controversial idea, though. > The really astute of you might notice that with a few exceptions, the > _people_ on the Board might not even change that much. That's FINE! > The proposal isn't about people, it's about the composition of the > Board. It is interesting to note that under my own proposal I would > no longer be on the Board. I'm OK with that if it makes the project > better positioned going forward. > > I'm curious as to what people think. I'm putting this out there as a > discussion starter. Hopefully the discussion it generates is positive > and thought provoking. > Huge +1. When we discussed the Fedora Council waaay back in the beginning of jsmith's term, we thought that this arrangement would have advantages like: * As a group, always able to provide necessary insight into all aspects of the project. * Able to communicate ideas, direction, and concerns to other areas of the project as a member of that community rather than as an outsider. * Would likely help with the unclear relationship between FESCo and the Board; not so much by directly clarifying the realms that they operate in; more that the FESCo member on the Board would be better at communicating what's going on in each body and getting the flavour of the conversations correct.(btw, jwb -- thanks for participating in fesco meetings in this role for the past several weeks). * Nothing would prevent the group from still serving as an extension of the FPL (being able to speak with the same authority as the current Board) * Would cut down on election fatigue. Anyhow, thanks for making this proposal! -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpmukjJA4n5r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
