Am Donnerstag, den 11.09.2014, 09:36 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Christoph Wickert > <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 11.09.2014, 08:16 -0400 schrieb Matthew Miller: > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:34:05PM -0000, board wrote: > >> > I'll start working on a draft for what that might look like and post it to > >> > the discuss list in the next couple of days. > >> > >> That doesn't mean everyone should wait for me, by the way. :) Particularly, > >> I'd love to hear everyone's ideas for translating > >> https://plus.google.com/+ChristophWickert/posts/UuU81LNZ27F?pid=6045572712375942674&oid=114008335300241090782 > >> into a reasonable number of council seats which cover the different areas in > >> a meaningful, representative way. > > > > When I brought up the idea of the council back in 2012, I wanted it to > > be an open group. Groups should be able to send representatives when > > they feel they need a liaison with the rest of the rest of the Fedora > > Project. > > > > Therefor I wanted it to not be limited to the big projects such as > > packagers and ambassadors, which may or may not already have their own > > bodies, but open for every little SIG or WG. > > > > During my presentation at FUDCon Blacksburg [1] Dave then brought up the > > issue of scalability and I think he has an important point. Imagine we > > have representatives of 20 groups and each of them just talks for 3 > > minutes... > > > > So I think the size of the group should be somehow limited, at least if > > we decide to have regular phone or IRC meetings. If we go for the lazy > > consensus however, we are probably able to handle more people. > > > > This being said we should have permanent members for the biggest and > > most important groups but also be able to invite representatives from > > other groups if necessary. > > > > Say we had a group of 9 permanent members I propose the following > > permanent representatives (in no particular order) > > 1. Workstation WG > > 2. Server WG > > 3. Cloud WG > > 4. FESCo > > 5. FAmSCO > > 6. QA > > 7. Infrastructure > > 8. Release Engineering > > 9. Marketing > > > > And of course the FPL. > > > > If you are wondering why marketing is in here and think it's > > over-represented: I think we definitely want the marketing team to > > become more important. > > > > Auxiliary members: > > * Design > > * Docs > > * L10n > > * FPC > > * Spins > > * Websites > > * ... > > > > Some of these are already represented as sub-projects of other permanent > > members, e.g. websites is already (kind of) represented by > > infrastructure, but it might be necessary get in touch with somebody > > directly to get shit done. > > > > Summary: For the permanent members, I would like us to think of > > something similar to the release readiness meetings. All relevant > > stakeholders should have a representative. > > For the auxiliary members, ideally we would have a liaison to every > > single group out there and be able to contact them whenever we feel it > > is necessary. And of course they should already be able to contact the > > council at any given point in time. > > > > Questions, comments, rants? > > I'm generally agreeable to all of this. It matches much of what I had > in my head when I re-proposed your idea independently. I particularly > like the idea of fixed members from major groups, with the ability to > pull in additional people in advisory roles when needed. Those > advisers don't even need to be from a SIG, but could be subject matter > experts for particular problems, etc. +1 As Jaroslav said, the problem is probably not decision making but communicating. I want us to have liaisons to every relevant group. > Initially I was concerned about the product WG seat suggestions > because "what happens if we add another Product?" However, I think > that immediately becomes part of the conversation around adding a new > product when it is proposed. It adds one more factor for > consideration, etc. I think that will help with some of the clarity > on what it takes to be an official product. Right. If it turns our a product, project of any other group plays a really important role in our community, we should be able to give them a permanent seat. On the other hand, some projects might become less important or might just not need a steady contact to us. We have no idea how exactly Fedora will look like in 5 years, so I want a flexible and open design that can easily be adjusted. > Of the 9 permanent seats you have listed, the only one I have > reservations about is Release Engineering. I agree they're a major > player and should have a seat, but Dennis seems to be overloaded on a > regular basis and I don't want to add one more thing to his plate. That was exactly my thought, too. > Perhaps the rel-eng group could come up with another representative to > help spread the load. +1 It's really great to see we agree so much. Obviously I'm not totally insane. ;) Best regards, Christoph _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
