On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's another aspect of burnout: two years is a big commitment. In
the past, we've bad people who really were getting burned out or busy
with other commitments but who felt they couldn't really step down
without abandoning their responsibilities. If we did go to two year
terms, I'd rather see one year + automatic re-up if you want.
Semi-concrete-ish proposal: let's either do that, or do something
really similar.
Premise: we currently have too many open positions in too many
elections.
Under your proposal, we'll have one FESCo election per year, electing 4
or 5 seats at minimum, plus extra seats for any members who have
decided not to re-up. So there would be between four and nine seats
open in each yearly election, but generally I'd guess it would probably
be between five and seven. On the whole, I think this would be a
positive change, because decreasing election frequency will increase
the importance of the elections. There is a sweet spot between too
frequent and too rare, and my intuition says we are too frequent right
now. But there will probably be more open positions per election than
we have now, and that seems negative to me.
5-7 spots (up from 4-5 currently) is kind of a lot. We'll have reduced
the frequency of elections (good), but the elections we do have will be
busier and more complicated and harder to vote for (bad). I think it
would still be a net win, but I'll propose one more change to reduce
open spots: FESCo members get *two* automatic re-ups. This way, a FESCo
member could serve up to three years between elections if desired, but
there are still annual elections, and there is never any expectation of
serving more than one year: that's just something each member would
decide at the end of the year when it's time for new elections. Instead
of 5-7 open seats, my guess is we'd probably have more like 3-5,
depending on how many candidates decide to re-up, which is more in line
with today's elections. This should make the elections more
significant, and hopefully also easier for voters.
I could even support more re-ups than that, but I'll only propose two.
It seems like the sweet spot to me. We don't want to overcorrect and
wind up with too few open positions and too few elections. And we don't
want terms to be *too* long, because FESCo members should still be
responsive to the Fedora developer community.
Aside: we might also want to align elections to calendar years instead
of Fedora releases, since otherwise the schedule could get screwy if we
ever wind up getting too far off of the target May/October cycle.
Michael
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/VOFMJ5XQ6CTYR3QH3SLD3GUFGQJQELVG/
