Hey guys, I was just wondering if there was any progress on this in the last 6 months.
On Sep 12, 2013 5:44 PM, "Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
