On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:32:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:58 AM, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Matthew Miller > >> <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Okay, so, I think I'm hearing two basic proposals here. Let's see if we can > >>> get them pinned down into a decide-betweenable form, and proceed from there. > >>> > >>> > >>> A. The Flock Proposal (a.k.a. Josh/Toshio/Haïkel/Christoph/Paul/etc., or > >>> Thundercougarfalconbird) > >>> > >>> - Replace current board with new body > >>> - New body has advisory role to FPL; FPL makes final decisions, > >>> striving as always for consensus where possible > >>> - Keeps all current responsibilies of board > >>> - some things, like trademarks and community dispute resolution > >>> may be delegated to subcommittees > >>> - Additionally, stronger charter for active leadership; creating > >>> and implementing shared vision > >>> - Composed of representatives from various Fedora committees, > >>> elected at the committee level; exact structure to be determined, > >>> but also flexible as needs of project change > >>> - Overall "org chart" for Fedora a little more pyramid-structured, with > >>> this clearly at the top. > >> > >> This seems accurate to me. > >> > >>> B. Two-Body Proposal (a.k.a. what I think I'm hearing from John) > >>> > >>> - Keep current board basically as it exists now in practice > >>> - Not necessarily as it is written up, which differs from that > >>> - specifically, "The Fedora Project Board is the executive team of the > >>> Fedora Project that makes guiding decisions and leads the project > >>> forward" would be rewritten to better reflect the idea of a "supreme > >>> court" rather than an _executive_ body. > >>> - in "responsibilities" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board, > >>> strike "oversight of subprojects" and "issues of strategic, as > >>> opposed to tactical, importance for Fedora that require leadership > >>> and vision from above the team or subproject level to achieve > >>> - As Greg defined the terms, more concerned with governance, less with > >>> leadership > >>> - Possibily additional governance roles, including more direct handling > >>> of community budget > >>> - Not mentioned, but putting this out there: we could consider switching > >>> this to being entirely elected at large rather than having appointed > >>> slots. > >>> - Chair of this body not necessarily FPL; in fact, FPL not necessarily a > >>> member > >> > >> Given this body would still be the "supreme court" for decision > >> making, would the FPL still retain veto over it? I would assume so. > > > > This is a detail of little interest to me at this point. I view it as > > cruft from long ago when someone was worried about the Board making a > > decision so far out of line with Red Hat's interests that there needed > > to be a way for the Board to be put back in its place. > > Whether it's important to you or not, the question still needs to be answered. > > > I don't like calling it the supreme court but if that really is the > > model people want then having a single individual have veto power over > > its decisions makes it not so supreme. > > > > I don't personally view it as a court at all. I view it as a body that > > is entrusted with making really hard decisions at infrequent times > > because someone has to make those decisions. Since this body is > > largely, perhaps entirely in the future, determined by Fedora > > Community it can be held directly accountable by it. > > > >>> - New executive council specifically tasked with refining and furthering > >>> the project's vision > >> > >> If the council sets the vision, does it have to be approved by the > >> supreme court board given it has an impact on Fedora's values? > > > > I would like to think that if the FPL wants to move away from Fedora's > > current values it would be nice to discuss that with the governance > > board. I would expect that most visions promoted by any FPL would not > > actually run counter to Fedora's existing values and would not need to > > be "cleared" by the governance board. > > I'd like to think that as well. But we're discussing governance > proposals and changes, and it should be clearly documented what the > interaction of these bodies is. Leaving it vague is going to lead to > confusion. > > >>> - More leadership, less governance > >>> - Probably composed almost exactly as proposal "A" > >>> - Except, unlike "A", this body wouldn't handle trademarks, community > >>> conflicts, or fundamental questions of Fedora values > >>> - It would, however, handle big things: I would expect that under this > >>> model most of the Fedora.next proposal would have gone here rather than > >>> to the Board unless someone specifically raised particular issues > >>> having to do with Friends/Freedom/Features/First. > >> > >> Same FPL veto question here. So would the veto extend to both the > >> board and the council? > > > > The council has no decision making power as proposed so this doesn't > > make sense. The FPL can simply change his/her mind in this case, no > > need for such formalities. > > OK, so you're envisioning the council as advisory roles only. No > votes on proposals, etc. > > >>> - Operational org chart still basically pyramid structured with new > >>> council at the peak and the board in sideways watchdog role > >> > >> The overall dynamic between these two bodies is confusing to me. It > >> would help if there was some clear definition of the interaction that > >> is expected. Should the council forge ahead and only consult the > >> board if requested to by the board or a community member? Does the > >> council have to continuously get OKs from the board? Etc. > > > > Like FESCo does now, any time the Council chooses to consult the board > > it can. I would expect this to normally only happen when some Council > > members are concerned about whether something being considered is > > inconsistent with Fedora's core values. > > I think that leads to a completely inactive and inattentive Board. If > the Council never bothers to contact the Board, then big changes can > happen without the Board even being aware, or aware of the > implications down the road. How would a Board know what the community > wants if they're only involved in the large changes infrequently and > on request only? > > This is why I'm very skeptical of a two-body setup here. I'm sure you > and I will disagree on this point, and I respect your point of view. > I don't think we're going to convince each other and I'm OK with that. I'm also skeptical, for the additional reason that this configuration seems to encourage more bureaucracy, which to me is precisely a non-goal of a more leadership-oriented one. But at the same time +1 to the comments on respect. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
