-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 08/15/2014 01:20 PM, Haïkel wrote: > Dear contributors, > > Following the current discussion about governance, a proposal to > change the governance model of the project has been made during the > "Governance for Fedora.Next workshop" in Flock Prague 2014. We > request your feedbacks about before considering its adoption or > rejection. > > * dissolving the current board * the board will be replaced by a > "community council" (final name to be chosen) * the community > council will be the main governance body of the Fedora Project, > its role will be to define a shared vision accross the project and > the highest decision-making power. That also includes technical > decisions. I personally think it is best to have a separate dedicated body for technical decision making. What would probably be better is have clear communication channels between the "council" (Fellowship? ;)) and the technical body (current FESCO). I am only worried that including technical decisions under the purview of council will make too many things under roof and might stretch the time needed for the board to take any decision and might create too much pressure on it. > * the community council will be composed of representatives and > advisers best suited to help guide the FPL in achieving the > project's objectives The election to the board is a bit unclear to me as it stands here. TO me it looked like there was more than one proposal regarding election or nomination to the board. > * community council members should be leaders and doers whom will > be able to drive and advocate the changes by the FPL for most > efficiency. * community council members will serve until either > they or the FPL feel that they should leave their seat to someone > else according the project agenda. Personally, I think both these points, as they are spelt out now, are too vague. It might be best to spell out "requirements" (not rigid, of course) (On the other hand, I do not know if it's needed). Second, is "serve until they or FPL feel" way to go? The discussion on this was interesting (reference to debian TC is an important one, I think). I agree one year is too short. But, it might be best to have a fixed time period, say three or five years - which is quite a good length of time, I feel. My two cents! :) - -- GPG key-ID: 00E8658D ==================== - -- GPG key-ID: 00E8658D ==================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIbBAEBCgAGBQJT7/FoAAoJEIfjPv0A6GWND7MP90snRIh8ZbMV4U1idHm6H+Mh 2HwtszI8hhhSs/205nsojkqSVk2LeEDh8kbBmj8P3TJCk+Eg5Pd20U+iKbvzUlJH qQnPeojAiyRCGzsFeBb+kOnOGSEDwhZ0l7WAwQ5BoMmsQ9BR8flgbGDDx2GLpVql 97klhUQbIc6PNDuoyOdHSNaFOFuWY/4tYo+0NadZ8FPphKh2YuddD1Q9wuVSq7eD yurlZAZk+hGkuwwYqItCZVC3+iNXFaVS6pw1RPyDjIDJBdCuuTc8+cbv0q8UOV96 IKu041PNuvbrIgoo0HNmDUiceorQ3uqwlXSGHMNgc/OMUDNlXueAv8hf4gfEt6vT 9pkmlCCFan4N+q1wV8dtZwnc839DpvFb/6H6el2b1moxAZuU8yMDmYvyxXh9inoF 7auKSobyAOs5JFXGBawQBaoNC5/Fm0sRreH1ULk7pWfiCEDsel6LfwBEbgqyVWvG dnDdpPJv8HWIcGr3+YKeKLw3/xO3Fd3tpheyMHMTmGMdO81K74ZZwWyJbKH4RjUE m1uM7cs0UrB0uA2p9RD7xjrO8p67P41rviwyzHNsVHExIeeDGNWDNaCOTLK5XP2c lMAHeR0I5KB60qTLmHpxTRGqkuT92KFUaKuabIBMHOFro2iBzB0iZelBS/43pFNk MZ5TdHETaBdtvOF3GA8= =GCAU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
