On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Haïkel <hguemar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > * the community council will be composed of representatives and > advisers best suited to help guide the FPL in achieving the project's > objectives > * groups will be defined based on the existing groups within the > Fedora Project in order to have every stakeholders represented by the > FPL > * the community council will serve as an advisory board to the FPL, > decision making will be the latter prerogative based on the council > feedbacks and his own judgement. > * 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. > * All the existing steering committees will continue to function as > before until the community council decide otherwise. > > After a public discussion open to all FedoraProject contributors, the > board will vote this proposal either as-is or amended based on *your > feedbacks*. > You'll find attached the slides shown during the workshop and a > piratepad with a transcript of the discussion. > > slides: https://toshio.fedorapeople.org/flock/Governance.odp > transcript: http://piratepad.net/Flock2014Governance > > > To avoid fragmenting the debate, please keep the discussion on the > @board-discuss list. Others have already mentioned many of my thoughts on this already, so I will simply present a few that have not yet been explored much. The cause of the Board's apparent lack of involvement -- poor representation of groups that "do" a lot -- are quite clear. The *reason* for that cause, however, is not as obvious to me. For instance, the Board have very little ability to get resources to use for anything substantial, so from my perspective, as someone who just wants to get things done, putting anyone on the Board will continue to be a net loss until something upsets that balance, no matter how its members are chosen. Does the proposal address this? Should it? >From the standpoint of discussing strategy, changing the Board's makeup as the proposal describes is surely a positive thing if for no other reason than how much it could improve how informed Board members will be. But is that enough? If the Board were capable of committing resources toward furthering the project's strategy then the answer would very likely be yes. Since that is not the case, though, that responsibility would fall upon its individual members just like it does today. Under the new proposal is it realistic to assert that Board members can direct the groups that they represent to follow the Board's decisions, even when those groups' members disagree? This is question is not new, but if the answer to it under the new proposal is "yes" then it gives us somewhat of a guarantee that we don't quite have today. The startling number of leadership/governance changes that have already occurred over the past year gives me pause. That is not to say that this proposal is without merit, but is it wise to re-structure yet another group when we have yet to fully realize the effects of the changes that have already happened? Overall, I think this is a great idea, but I am not entirely convinced that changing everything at once right now is the best plan, especially given that this can be done incrementally. The FPL can already appoint members from the major groups in Fedora, and he can ask those groups to recommend people for him to appoint beforehand just like the proposal suggests. The proposed structural changes do not have to happen at the same time for us to begin realizing some of the benefits the project could get by changing the Board's makeup. In fact, that could even happen with no discussion at all. Then again, we aren't exactly known for successfully following through on long-term plans. Perhaps the all-at-once approach is the only way this can realistically happen. -- Garrett Holmstrom _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
