Did someone ask for a wayback machine?
So the original existence of the Fedora Board came from the fact that we were creating and incorporating a 501(c)3 corp in the form of the Fedora Foundation. Part of the rules for governance of such an organization include having a board with people in very specific positions (ie, I was the secretary and might still have the Official Stamp somewhere in a box). As we dissolved the foundation[1], we kept the board and it was the only "governing" body of Fedora. And more importantly, the board served as the "external group conscience" to provide leverage and a good conduit for things to get back to inside of Red Hat at the time.
There was no FESCo or anything else... those came later and were partially driven to exist by the fact that the Board had a lot of "Red Hat" seats. Also, early on FESCo was purely about Extras (the E was for Extras, not Engineering) and couldn't drive big changes that rippled throughout technically. The merge of Core and Extras obviously changed that and the role of the Board has continued to get murkier and murkier ever since.
</historian>
That said, if someone were to come and ask me if the Board makes sense in its current form today, I would say probably not. While the trademark, copyright, etc stuff is important, is there significant benefit being had by having those discussions in the Board as opposed to just someone like Robyn? Also the real questions for the future of the Fedora are, as they have almost always been, technical in nature and best driven by those doing the lion's share of the technical work. Accept and empower that group and I think a lot of good will happen. </soapbox>
- Jeremy
[1] http://www.redhat.com/magazine/008jun05/departments/fedora_status/#fedora-foundation and http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-April/msg00016.html are both good historical reads.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Robert Mayr <robyduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2013/9/11 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx>:
> The overall lack of commenting really kind of baffles me still. Now I> josh
> can't tell if it's simply apathy, "silence means agreement", or some
> kind of boycott.
Hi Josh,
when I read your proposal I said 'yes, that's a good idea' and I still
agree with all you wrote in your mail.
Having representatives of every group in the Board could help to let
the teams work easier together, and we'd have the guarantee to have
every single group within the Board to discuss also specific issues.
On the other hand most of the Board members actually would remain on
their seat (as you pointed out), so we are already doing well with the
nominations/elections process. Changing the process therefore wouldn't
revolutionize the Board members, but we would have for sure a better
definition of how to compose the Board also in the future.
Just my two cents in this discussion.
Greetings.
--
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
_______________________________________________
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
