#12: Fedora Council Charter Draft: collect concerns for revisions in preparation for vote ------------------------+----------------------- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: mattdm Status: new | Priority: critical Component: Board Meta | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------+----------------------- Comment (by inode0): I apologize for not having time to look this over before now but the past couple of weeks have been brutal in other areas of life. Rather than thinking about these comments as objections try to look at them as questions asked to help me understand some points in the proposal better. At this point I'm just looking for some explanations and I'm not offering specific objections. First, beginning near the end I don't think it is accurate to suggest that the FPL has any less of a veto power under this system than previously. The FPL can vote -1 which blocks any proposal and even if escalated for the FPL to then decide because the Council is stuck the FPL still votes -1 to effect the veto. I don't object to the FPL having such power, but I don't think it is accurate to suggest the FPL has a more limited power. Also, I think we spend way too much time talking about a power that hasn't been used in the history of the project. Second, the section governing selection of Elected Representatives it says: * No person who currently holds another Council seat can be elected, nor can anyone be elected twice in a row (although the same person may be elected multiple times, with a break in between). Why do we want to restrict these two community elected positions in this way when four other positions appointed by Red Hat or the Council serve indefinitely at the pleasure of Red Hat or the Council? Is there some harm you see according the same notion of indefinite terms at the pleasure of the community? Third, I still have some discomfort regarding the resolution of matters that don't reach consensus. Where did the number three come from when deciding what is needed for a measure to be adopted? That seems arbitrary and quite small, although the actual size of the pool of voters on measures will vary depending on the issue which makes this a bit fuzzy. Why isn't there a similar number for dispatching issues that fall the other direction? Say, three negative votes and no positive votes kills a measure by the same consensus doesn't it? What is the incentive for a single dissenter to try to convince a second member of the council to join in the dissent if all that accomplishes is that the FPL decides the issue? That would happen even without the second dissenter as described here? I could go on a bit more here but I think I'll wait for some feedback on this point as my fairly literal reading might not line up with what you really mean. A couple of wording items: In the FPgM strike the work "Board" and replace with Council if that is the intention. Please don't call public contact with the community "office hours." People find that condescending and suggestive of a strong power discrepency (teacher vs. student for example). -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/12#comment:10> board <https://fedorahosted.org/board> Fedora Project Board Public Tickets _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
