Fedora is fundamentally a somewhat anarchic collective. Our governance model is built around fostering coordination rather than leadership. In that context, the existing board structure is an obvious failure. The meaningful things we do are make decisions on the use of project IP and come up with handwavy ideas about project direction. We're theoretically the last line of appeal against any other decisions, but in most cases we're less qualified to make that decision than whichever group did so originally. Handling project IP is important. I don't think we need a board to do it. Determining project direction is important. I think an elected-but-not-actually-representative board is the wrong body to do that. Being entirely honest, the reason I stood for the board was that I was concerned about the potential for a refocusing of the project's direction in a way that didn't interest me. It's great that people chose to elect me, but right now I have no other involvement in Fedora's governance. My contributions to Fedora are fairly minimal - I work on a few tiny corners of some important packages, but otherwise I just talk a lot. The fact that it was so easy for me to get on the board and influence these decisions is arguably a failure in process. So, a council-type arrangement seems entirely appropriate. I endorse this proposal. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
