#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:13 inode0]: > Replying to [comment:12 mattdm]: > > 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. > Why don't we have the same concern for the other elected positions? Aren't they subject to the same thing potentially happening? I have that concern there too, but it's balanced somewhat by a desire for continuity in the positions that are directly representative of the outreach and building halves of the project, and by the fact that those positions will be chosen by the active committees in those areas. > > Would we want something where there's three positive votes and three "This is fine / I don't care either way"s to fail? > No, but I might want something with three positive votes and three "I'm not voting against this but I am against it for these reasons" to fail or at least continue to be discussed. Some of this will come down to operating conventions which we will evolve in practice (but some of which we might codify now.) One thing we can do is define "-1" as "hold on", rather than "I hate this it must die". That way, it _can_ express "I'm not necessarily going to stand against this but have these reservations", and you can change to 0 (or even +1) once you're satisfied that the concerns have been listened to or addressed. Or, we could say that a "0 with concerns" vote automatically turns to a -1 if those concerns aren't discussed. (Just as a -1 without reasonable explanation automatically turns to a 0 -- in either case, discussion of the concerns and "what would it take to make this a yes?" gets the emphasis.) > > 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? > Yeah, I may be confused a bit here. I think it would help me a lot if you could define with some precision what situation constitutes a lack of consensus where the Council might ask the FPL to simply decide the matter. I think the most likely situation is when there's one sticking point which a single member feels that they can't compromise on, but everyone else feels necessary, and everyone feels like all options have been exhausted (that's why there's the part about two weeks of discussion). The more difficult situation would be when the council has a more even split, likely one that's reflective of a big division in the project as a whole. In that case, project-wide discussion _should_ continue as long as it continues to be constructive and productive. I can imagine a situation where that would reach its limit, and we'd need to pick one way or another and move on. That should be both a big deal and rare, and as I noted above, we might build some automatic post-mortem requirement when it happens (although I think that it's probably not something we need to over-engineer for). -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/12#comment:15> 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
