On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I think the basic answer here is "trust in democracy" -- this board (the > > supervisory/"court" style one) might be hands-off but should be > > comprised of members who take the role of representing the community > > values seriously and actively. If they're not, they should be replaced > > at the next election. > Fedora isn't a democracy. It's a weird mix of meritocracy and > democratic ideals. Absolutely; I think John is arguing for the democracy part of the mix to be particularly strong in this body. > > It's possible that being more forward about this future boards' role as > > _primarily_ stewardship of Fedora values would help here, along with more > > emphasis on that at election time. > I think this is largely where we deviate here. I don't view the > Board's role as ONLY stewardship of Fedora values. I view it as that > plus facilitating and enabling the various groups across Fedora to > better communicate and accomplish what they're trying to achieve. As I see it, I think the two-body plan recognizes that greater need too, but suggests that they're better done separately. > And as I've said, I don't think a two body setup is going to help at all > with that. I'm actually pretty confident that either could work, and better than what we have now. Give or take the details to be worked out... -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
