On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 04:30 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > I don't think that's a fair characterization. For example, the FESCo > representative is appointed by FESCo, which is 100% community- > elected. > > Breaking it down, three seats (FPL, FCAIC, FPgM) are positions for > specific Red Hat employees, two are directly elected by the > community, > three represent community bodies (FESCo, Mindshare, D&I), and the > remainder are objective leads, which can be any contributor. So of > the > 8 permanent seats, five are directly or indirectly selected by the > community. > > I'll remind folks that as of this writing, there are no nominated > candidates for the Council election[1]. Sure, but I think my claim that it's not "exactly" the same is still true. There is a leadership advantage that Red Hat holds over the community in that Red Hat can appoint certain positions. Similar to how the casino always wins in the long term due to having probability advantages.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
