----- Original Message ----- > From: "Garrett Holmstrom" <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:25:31 PM > Subject: Re: Board/Project Governance > > On 2013-09-11 7:57, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > >> I will buy you a hot dog if you did one or the other. :) > > > > The overall lack of commenting really kind of baffles me still. Now I > > can't tell if it's simply apathy, "silence means agreement", or some > > kind of boycott. > > > > At this point I'd almost welcome a 200 email flamefest. Maybe I > > should just suggest disbanding the Board entirely. > > I have been waiting to hear other community members' thoughts as I mull > the question over myself. > > My philosophy is that the board's job is primarily to make sure people > are empowered to drive the project forward. The board shouldn't have to > be the group driving change, and the fact that we now have a major > project-changing proposal being driven by the rest of the community is a > great testament to that. That the board has had to do little but take > on an advisory role in recent days is an indication of success, not > failure, because it means people have been able to continue to drive the > project without having us stand in the way. > > >> So when I see a proposal like this - there are obviously some added > >> benefits; an opportunity for better coordination / problem discovery as > >> we re-think ourselves for the foreseeable future is the most immediate > >> thing. Drawbacks: People delegated by their teams, presumably because > >> they are good at what they do and are well-integrated with the team > >> enough to know what is going on, will have less time to do those things > >> they are good at doing. And sometimes it may be the bulk of what time > >> they have to dedicate to Fedora on a weekly basis. > > > > Yes, there's a possibility the delegates will spend less time doing, > > but I honestly don't foresee that being massively so. > > Some of the committees you mentioned haven't always had board > representation because few to none of its members bothered to run in the > first place. Guaranteeing someone from each of these groups a seat may > change that, but would that actually cause people to become more > interested in participating on the board? > > >> I also see this bordering on being a "place for permission" or a place for > >> bypassing appropriate groups to solve a problem. Which tends to wear on > >> people's souls who are serving. One of the nice things about the board - > >> of course, the crazy libertarian in me may be showing through here - is > >> that they have really have limited power. We can't snap our fingers and > >> make anyone do anything; things are done by those willing to do the work. > > > > The proposal doesn't change the scope of power (or lack thereof). It > > simply addresses, in more specific terms, what the seats on the Board > > are for. > > Not just what they are for, but *who* they are for. Given the fact that > the board largely acts in an advisory capacity these days, I think that > the additional breadth of knowledge that a more diverse membership could > bring could be quite a boon for the project. It might cost me my seat > as well, but it's worth that if that puts the project in a much better > position. > > >> Nonetheless: My main concern is that we are not burning people out, not > >> introducing additional barriers to contribution, not adding significant > >> amounts of process without reducing process in other areas, not having to > >> coordinate 45 elections somehow magically. > > > > Yes, good things to avoid. I don't believe the proposal adds a huge > > amount of process or increases any barriers. As for elections, I'm > > not sure they'll really be impacted at all. If anything, it's one > > less election to run where we only get 2% voter turnout anyway. > > It could potentially add an election within each group, but since the > decision of what is most appropriate would be up to the groups > themselves it's doesn't seem like something to be particularly concerned > about. I suppose I may putting the cart before the horse here, so to speak, but was just thinking about the prospect of the following: (a) Coordination of additional elections by whichever teams elect to do so (b) If they are uncoordinated and more or less ad-hoc (everyone on different schedules) - if the election announcements would be endless, cause difficulty in (re)scheduling meetings, etc. (c) In either an uncoordinated case or a coordinated case - if that winds up being a lot more on the election coordinator's plate But I agree largely that what is appropriate to each group would be their decision to make; most teams come to consensus without elections anyway on who the leader is or who a representative will be in readiness meetings. -robyn > > -- > Garrett Holmstrom > _______________________________________________ > advisory-board mailing list > advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
