2014-09-26 18:18 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Wow, it got kind of quiet in here. Sorry for the delay — between F21 Alpha > and the bash vulnerability, it's been a busy week. But let's get back to the > big issue! > Well, for the quiet part we were waiting for your draft :) > I can see a large open map of possible ways to go forward, but here's my > suggestion for what I think is best. I've tried to take into account the > concerns noted in the previous board ticket¹. Let me know if there are big > areas that seem to be missing and we'll work those out. I know we need an > official document on consensus process and how exactly that will work; > that's a next step. Like everything we do, it's okay if we don't get all of > the details right at first; we can always refine. > > > As we've discussed, it's really hard to represent the entire sprawl of the > project on a board with a limited number of seats. In addition to the > representative seats we've talked about, I want to have two to four members > each actively connected to an 18-month goal; for example: > > - Fedora.next products (Marketing + WGs + QA + Metrics) > - Fedora.next rings (Base WG + Env & Stacks + RelEng) > - Automate all the things (QA + RelEng + Infrastructure) > - Improved project communication (CWG + Design + Hyperkitty) > Sounds fair > These are example goals (although not completely arbitrary). Here, the > person selected would be actively driving and coordinating each thing. The > parenthetical groups are non-exclusive examples of areas of the project each > "objective lead" would work with. > > These would be relatively high-load roles — this is where we really get into > reducing stress on the FPL. In most cases, it shouldn't be hard to find > someone, as these should generally represent big ongoing effort in the > project anyway. Sometimes, though, there may be something which we all agree > is a good idea but no one has made their focus — as Eric was saying, if we > only draw people from things we're already doing, it's hard to do new > things. > > In any case, these would be focused on specific goals, and once each goal is > met, changed for a new position reflecting a new community goal. They would > be more than just advisory members, but their votes would only be binding in > areas related to their objectives. > This is probably the big turn in Fedora Project, having project-level goals and giving ourselves the tools to reach these goals. It enables us to talk about strategic planning and expect outcomes. I'd rather explicitly tie these goals to a 3 releases term, rather than 18 months. Since schedules may slip, explicit is better than implicit. > > Then, we want to have representative seats, as we've been discussing. I > propose four: > > - Engineering (representing FESCo, QA, RelEng, Infrastructure, WGs, FPC, etc.) > - Outreach (representing FAmSCo, regions, Marketing, etc.) > - Elected (at large) > - Elected (at large) > Ok > The engineering and outreach members would be selected by the people active > in those areas (probably FESCo and FAmSCo, as the existing steering > committees for each). One seat covers a very broad area, because that's the > only way to keep the numbers small. The responsibility would be to represent > those groups collectively, _not_ to be an individual voice that happens to > be voted-in by some subset of Fedora. Representatives of more specific > groups would be encouraged to participate in discussion, but only these > positions would have a final binding vote. (We could formalize these as > "auxiliary members" as Christoph suggests; my preference is to keep it > informal.) > *nods* It is important that these representatives actively participate in discussions upstream. > The elected positions cover Fedora's subprojects not under the engineering > or outreach banners (docs, l10n, etc.), and the community at large. I don't > see a better way of representing the groups that don't fall neatly under > "building the distro" and "building the userbase" while keeping the number > of seats to a level which feels functional. > > > Finally, we would keep a few formalized appointed positions. Overall, > this can be thought of as just reframing the currently-appointed board > positions as connected to specific named roles: > > - Fedora Program Manager (FPgM) > - Community Action and Impact > - Diversity Advisor > - Fedora Project Leader > > The FPgM is something that we actually have already, and which we actually > depend on a lot for getting releases out the door, so I agree with Jaroslav > (the current FPgM) that it would be nice to formalize that role within > Fedora itself. > I'm not keen of *formally* tying more seats to more Red Hat positions. But with 12 members, that only affect 1/3 of the board, the other 2/3 are either representatives or elected seats so I'm willing to try (consider this as a +0) > Community Action & Impact is a new one — Red Hat's Open Source and Standards > group is interested in funding a new full-time position to lead initiatives > to grow the Fedora user and developer communities, and to make Red Hat / > Fedora interactions even more transparent and positive. The Fedora community > budget comes to us through OSAS, and this position will facilitate > decision-making on how to best focus that to meet our collective objectives. > *nods* > The diversity advisor role also doesn't currently exist, but it's an area > where we have a lot of work to do, so I would like to see it exist. (And I > think it's much bigger than an 18-month objective.) > +1 I would strongly advise not making it a formal position within Red Hat (even better someone outside the fp.o) but bringing someone with a proven track in that field. Why ? An external POV would help us to identify our weak points and how to improve them. Besides, that would avoid bias. Of course, that would require leverage from Red Hat but I see a close collaboration with the new Community Action & Impact role about it. > And the FPL... that's me. I'd still like to stay involved. :) > Well, you had no choice in the first place :> > > Overall, we wouldn't be meeting-driven, although we would probably have > semi-regular meetings in order to discuss what's going on and to clear > through anything outstanding which can be quickly resolved. We might make > the regular Monday meeting into "office hours", instead. All members would > be expected to regularly communicate what's going on in their area, through > blog posts or other public updates. We'd use the lazy consensus model > extensively, with strong expectations for communicating about decisions or > plans that might affect others. > +1 My expectations about the new leadership body: * communicate with Fedora * proactively identify issues and bringing solutions (DON'T wait meetings) * represent your groups, not only your own opinions * be part of the gig * care about the project, care about the people Regards, H. > > > > ---- > > 1. https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/9 > > > -- > Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > board-discuss mailing list > board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
