-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/26/2014 09:18 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > 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. I want to point out a bias I think we haven't identified -- so far the consensus in this discussion is that "a too large group won't be able to make decisions or get things done." Part of this comes to light as I watch you struggle a bit with how to group projects under a single representative and I wondered about other approaches. There are arguments to make on either side of large vs small (and I'm unconvinced large would work, in general I share the bias but not entirely). I think being aware of this bias is important, such as being able to set it aside when imagining structures and processes at all levels. How might a single body that comprised a representative of each sub-group in the project get to decisions and action?[1] Group size and limitations may have come up early in the reorganization discussions, I don't recall, it just occurred to me that it could be an inaccurate or misleading bias and worth some consideration. I don't intend this to siderail the reorganization process, so I think it might be worth considering as a way for the small-now body to evolve over time. It could be worth putting it in the roadmap for the new body to regularly reconsider as things change over time.[2] - - Karsten [1] For example, I can imagine that on each particular decision topic, the people closest to the problem would end up doing most of the debating and moving toward consensus for the overall group. As with other large body discussions, a -1 can come from anyone potentially, but they need to back it up with a solid reason. As a representative body, the -1 would carry more weight since it represents a risk of an entire body of contributors forking away. Other balances I could see are "gets greater buy-in on decisions because everyone feels heard through their sub-group representative" and "would a large group make the loudest talkers the consensus drivers and keep others from being heard". [2] FWIW, I went through a similar exercise when we were writing the CentOS Board governance, thinking through from large to small dynamics. In the end, as the governance was new-from-scratch and not really evolved, we decided to favor toward being a small and highly active group. But Board makeup is on a roadmap to be discussed at least once a year. I wanted to leave open the ability to elevate SIGs to having a Board seat, for example, which would have similar growth problems) - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlQogLQACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHgKQCfYZuJOoe2beHvZ/WWBGKbFWFQ CesAoN6R2D7GwQyx8LdkZutx8oOhF2Pz =FDZa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
