#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 mattdm): Replying to [comment:10 inode0]: > 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. Yeah; I'm open to different wording, or even to just striking it. (I added it at Rahul's suggestion based on list discussion.) I would like to somehow get in there that like the previous veto power, it's really a last resort and I expect it to continue to not be used. > 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? My concern is with the same people being elected continuously on name recognition rather than on platform; it's easy to fall into this. Not that those people aren't usually great, just that it gives a chance for others and for their new ideas. What does everyone else think about this? > 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. +3 is mostly arbitrary. I picked that particular arbitrary value because A) It's what Apache uses for decisions, and for that matter CentOS too, although in both cases their overall structure is different. (With Apache, it's often a very large number of potential voters; with CentOS, as Karsten was saying on the mailing list, it's a small number but may grow in the future) and B) a smaller number tilts towards action. Would we ''want'' something where there's three positive votes and three "This is fine / I don't care either way"s to fail? > 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? No, it's much stronger. Just -1 blocks the measure. Or do you mean something like some number of negative votes removes the topic from discussion entirely? * If there's _no_ positive votes, I think that will happen naturally and there's no need for rules. * If there are some positive votes and some negative ones, then it seems like something we ''should'' work out with further discussion. * If there's just one positive vote and that one person isn't able to convince anyone else after a period of time, I think that too will probably happen naturally. > 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? A group decision which everyone finds acceptable is in everyone's interest. If the dissenter thinks that the FPL will simply rule completely against their views, it's in their interest to help find a compromise position which would be more acceptable than that. The emphasis shouldn't be on convincing people to join sides (a power-struggle situation), but on getting issues with the proposal resolved if at all possible. And it's the responsibility of the proponents of the proposal to work to address the concerns of members voting -1. In some models, single -1 votes cease to be blocking after a period of time, so a lone dissenter has to find support for that position. But I think that's more suited to a much larger body, and I think it kind of encourages political wrangling, and puts too much emphasis on the negative side. I'm open to adding something which makes situations where the FPL needs to unblock have a built-in followup consequence, beyond just everything in that which is we inherently want to avoid. Someone mentioned that in CentOS, if this happens, the mechanism is that the dissenter is actually removed from the board. I don't think that's what we want to do, but maybe having something that strong would help. > A couple of wording items: > In the FPgM strike the work "Board" and replace with Council if that is the intention. Done. Simply pasted from earlier proposal text. > 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). That didn't occur to me, but point taken. Alternate suggestions? (This wasn't meant to be a name for _all_ communication with the community, of course; just a specific time when I'll promise to be generally available.) -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/12#comment:12> 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
