On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 12.11.2013, 07:32 -0500 schrieb Josh Boyer: >> Hi All, >> >> The charter is due this Friday, November 15. We have two comments >> from Jens on this draft, one for suggesting a voting timeframe of >> within a week of an official proposal, the other for possibly using >> trac for voting. I'm fine with the timeframe, and I don't care either >> way on trac or what I have in the draft below. >> >> Please review and either approve or make suggested changes. >> >> josh >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi All, >> > >> > Here's the second draft of the charter. I think I captured most of >> > the discussion to date, but there's always a chance I missed >> > something. Please read this over and provide any feedback you have. >> > Please pay particular attention to the (NOTE:) items. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > josh >> > >> > == Fedora Workstation WG Governance == >> > >> > This document describes the governing structure for the Fedora >> > Workstation Work Group. >> > >> > === Membership === >> > >> > The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one >> > member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the >> > liaison to FESCo. >> > >> > The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for >> > the Work Group. The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG >> > decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis. >> > They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the >> > WG. The liaison is not required to be a FESCo member, but should be >> > able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings. >> > >> > Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become >> > available. In the event that a current member relinquishes their >> > seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and >> > approving by majority consensus. Eligible candidates must be in the >> > FPCA+1 group. The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out >> > candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality >> > contribution to the Workstation product. >> > >> > (NOTE: I believe this is a decent encapsulation of the discussion >> > we've had thus far. I've omitted term limits for now, but I'm open to >> > suggestions. The FPCA+1 requirement seems reasonable to me as we want >> > to make sure they're a Fedora contributor first and foremost. >> > Suggestions/questions welcome.) > > I'm still having problems with this. You have incorporated the > discussion nicely with your changes, however the term "Workstation > product" gives me headache. "The Workstation product" is GNOME and will > continue to be GNOME in the foreseeable future. I do think this is the > right choice and I don't want to start yet another desktop, but for the > governance charter I would like a phrasing that does not 'exclude' > non-GNOME contributors like me and Lukáš. Well, that's one of the main intentions behind calling it the Workstation Work Group. We want to encourage participation from a broad set of contributors. Also, I don't think we've actually officially decided on a base DE. I expect, as you seem to, that we would go with GNOME but we haven't actually talked about that elephant in the room yet. > How about something like > "candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality > contribution to one of Fedora's desktop environments" or "workstation > technology". This seems great to me. I can make that change if there are no objections. > Maybe this is a different topic, but the term "Workstation product" > gives me some headache. We can bring that up next. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
