On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Owen Taylor <otaylor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 15:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ray Strode <halfline@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The other positions will be filled by general election >> >> every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in >> >> one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of >> >> members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora >> >> election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group. >> >> >> >> In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat >> >> will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If >> >> that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to >> >> each successive runner up until the seat is filled. >> > >> > I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group >> > decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the >> > work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes. >> > (the whole "fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy" thing). >> > >> > Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related >> > software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud >> > working group, or vice-versa. >> > >> > Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction >> > of the work. >> > If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't >> > think that will happen. >> >> Fair. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike the >> idea of doing full blown elections. They seem overkill and cumbersome >> when it comes to coordinating, etc. > > I strongly support this view - the end result of having too many > elections is that only a tiny fraction of people have the attention to > understand what is going on and vote. Repeating myself from the server list: I don't think long serving terms, and especially indefinite serving terms, are healthy: there should be an easy way for the community to self-correct without requiring extraordinary effort like finding a thick-skinned "opposition leader" to set up a recall election or the like. AFAICT unlike (Czech and US at least) national governments, the Fedora elections have always had very low overhead and basically no campaign / pre-election posturing seasons disruptive to the project; there hasn't been much election-related burden to speak of. > It also seems problematical to > have a elected working group that falls under the supervision of FESCO > which is also elected. What if FESCO and the group disagree? This can just as well happen with a non-elected group. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct