2014-08-16 21:02 GMT+02:00 Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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: > Hi Ben, Thank you for taking the time to process the transcript before reacting and for being honest. :) This is a major change, and the board is waiting for your input before moving forward. Speaking for myself, my own vote is tied to the community feedback. When it'll be publicly available, I'll also publish the LWN article about the workshop that provides a third party point of view from an attendee (I encourage LWN subscribers to read it if they hadn't) > * Lengthen board terms to reduce turnover (I'm not necessarily in > favor of the indefinite terms as presented, but one year is too short) Actually, there is little turnover, in the current board, Neville and I excepted, everyone else already served at least once. We discussed the indefinite and time-limited terms during the workshop, but as a community project, people's availability may vary. Indefinite terms are out of question, seats will be appointed to *active* contributors and to have a proper representation. > * 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?" > *nods* > 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? > Yes, that's what we expect from the new governance: defining a shared vision, common goals *and* being able to make them in motion ! (or else, it will be a failure) But with our current organization, even if the board wanted to, we are pretty much powerless to make things happen. There were many discussions, Toshio and I took the opportunity of Flock to moderate a session to come up with a concrete proposal. As Fedora.Next, "Governance.Next" is an incremental change, unlike the current board, FEsco is functioning, so we're not breaking what actually works. But it is intended that the "council" will be the highest decision-making body in Fedora, even able to precede FEsco. At this point, we don't know if we'll keep FESco as it is or not (I guess, we'll always have a technical committee around but this is my own opinion) We expect that when the new governance will be established and concrete goals defined, the project will be gradually reorganized accordingly . Regards, H. > > -- > Ben Cotton > _______________________________________________ > board-discuss mailing list > board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
