My initial reaction to this proposal was "what did I just read?" At first glance, it looked like a move from a democracy to a dictatorship. I even used the phrase "the Shuttleworthization of Fedora." Having taken the time to process the proposal, as well as look at the the accompanying material, my reaction has shifted. In the process of writing about the parts of the proposal I'd like to keep, I realize that I essentially came up with the same proposal in different terms. My two point summary: * Lengthen board terms to reduce turnover (I'm not necessarily in favor of the indefinite terms as presented, but one year is too short) * Change the board from being entirely at-large to being representative of major constituencies The Fedora Board, at least from the perspective of an irregular contributor, is indeed a very passive organization. To some degree, I find that appropriate for our community, but I can appreciate the arguments that a more active board would benefit the community and the product we labor to produce. The questions that arise are: "how active should the board be?" and "how do we structure the board such that it meets this need?" My concern is that we're addressing the second question before addressing the first. We don't know where we're going, but we know how we're going to get there! The thread on board-discuss back in September was unclear about the intended relationship between a re-imagined board and FESCo. The proposal as presented offers no additional clarity. The proposal talks of leading and doing without really talking about the scope of responsibility. Perhaps that's the main problem with the board as currently constructed? -- Ben Cotton _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
