Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:36:17PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > The repercussions of this difference area big enough that I think it should > > > be considered a separate proposal -- it makes the composition of the > > ... how so? This isn't obvious to me from reading the proposal, and reading > > the meeting logs. Is the concern that if the council has actual > > decision-making power that it needs to be fully represenative of all teams > > (proportionally or otherwise)? I understand the idea there, but even at the > > advisory council we should be working towards as much representation as > > possible. > > Maybe I'm overstating it. The two things I see are: > > - When the group has formal decision-making power, it matters a lot more > who exactly is on the group. At Flock, we talked quite a bit about the > idea of having a rather fluid membership in the FPL-decides model, with > people pulled in on the fly as appropriate for a particular situation, > maybe only for a short time. Especially if there's voting and > vote-counting, a body with decision-making power needs to be more > formalized. That's not necessarily bad, just different. > > - If the decision-making power is vested in one person, I think there's a > strong case for having a separate "watchdog" sort of body. If the > representative group is itself more than advisory, that doesn't seem > necessary to me. Nod, understood. My reply and your later-posted explanation crossed in the ether anyway - what you propose in that mail seems reasonable to me. Bill _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
