forming the Modules WG

[Matthew Miller]

We approved
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototyp...
which means that "Modules Working Group" is now a Thing.

I went back to
look at how we formed the existing working groups in the first place,
and it turns out the process started with me sending this message:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-September/0...
I suggest that we start with the same process now -- I'll send out a
similar message and people can self-nominate. We can follow the same
one month timeframe, for formalization (while Langdon does his Grand
Tour), but of course that needn't stop interested people getting
started sooner.

Previously, the members were selected by FESCo from the list of
nominees. I suggest this time we have Langdon as Objective Lead do that
selection submit that to the Council for approval (which will include
FESCo voice through Josh as the Engineering lead, if necessary).


Also, now is the time to nail down any bikeshed painting anyone has on
Modules WG vs Modularity WG vs Modularization WG. (Modularizing WG?
Modulatory WG? Modulating WG? Okay time for some coffee.)

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[White, Langdon]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:30 AM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
wrote:

>  We approved
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototyp...
>  which means that "Modules Working Group" is now a Thing.
>
>  I went back to
>  look at how we formed the existing working groups in the first place,
>  and it turns out the process started with me sending this message:
>
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-September/0...
>  I suggest that we start with the same process now -- I'll send out a
>  similar message and people can self-nominate. We can follow the same
>  one month timeframe, for formalization (while Langdon does his Grand
>  Tour), but of course that needn't stop interested people getting
>  started sooner.
>
>  Previously, the members were selected by FESCo from the list of
>  nominees. I suggest this time we have Langdon as Objective Lead do that
>  selection submit that to the Council for approval (which will include
>  FESCo voice through Josh as the Engineering lead, if necessary).
>
>
>  
Was that initial members? Then voting took place after that?




>  Also, now is the time to nail down any bikeshed painting anyone has
> on
>  Modules WG vs Modularity WG vs Modularization WG. (Modularizing WG?
>  Modulatory WG? Modulating WG? Okay time for some coffee.)
>
>  
Oscillating WG?

Seriously though, my preference is for Modularity WG, but I haven't got any
paint.



>  --
>  Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Fedora Project Leader
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]...
>
>  The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
>  open source software and content as a collaborative community.

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47:08AM +0000, White, Langdon wrote:
>  Was that initial members? Then voting took place after that? 
Yeah, then each group came up with their own charter and rules for
replacing members. Only Env & Stacks went for full open elections for
replacement, FWIW.

>  > Also, now is the time to nail down any bikeshed painting anyone
> has on
>  > Modules WG vs Modularity WG vs Modularization WG. (Modularizing WG?
>  > Modulatory WG? Modulating WG? Okay time for some coffee.)
>  Oscillating WG?
>  Seriously though, my preference is for Modularity WG, but I haven't got any
>  paint. 
*hands you some paint*

Quick, change the wiki pages before anyone notices.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Jan Kurik]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47:08AM +0000, White, Langdon wrote:
> > Was that initial members? Then voting took place after that?
>
>  Yeah, then each group came up with their own charter and rules for
>  replacing members. Only Env & Stacks went for full open elections for
>  replacement, FWIW. 
Looks like lot of fun for the one who will organize these elections :-)

Jan

> > > Also, now is the time to nail down any bikeshed painting
> anyone has on
> > > Modules WG vs Modularity WG vs Modularization WG. (Modularizing WG?
> > > Modulatory WG? Modulating WG? Okay time for some coffee.)
> > Oscillating WG?
> > Seriously though, my preference is for Modularity WG, but I haven't got any
> > paint.
>
>  *hands you some paint*
>
>  Quick, change the wiki pages before anyone notices.
>
>
>  --
>  Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Fedora Project Leader
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]...
>
>  The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
>  open source software and content as a collaborative community. 


-- 
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 03/15/2016 08:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>  On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47:08AM +0000, White, Langdon wrote:
> >> Was that initial members? Then voting took place after that?
> >
> > Yeah, then each group came up with their own charter and rules for
> > replacing members. Only Env & Stacks went for full open elections for
> > replacement, FWIW.
>  
>  Looks like lot of fun for the one who will organize these elections :-)
>   
Speaking for the Server WG, we found that just allowing people to carry on until
they feel like they're not willing to do it any more was a reasonable balance.
We have had some turnover at times and it's been pretty smooth.

Once someone steps down, we seek out replacements and then vote majority (but
seeking consensus) for who will fill their seat.

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:34:37AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  Speaking for the Server WG, we found that just allowing people to
>  carry on until they feel like they're not willing to do it any more
>  was a reasonable balance. We have had some turnover at times and it's
>  been pretty smooth.
>  
>  Once someone steps down, we seek out replacements and then vote
>  majority (but seeking consensus) for who will fill their seat. 
Yeah, I think so too — I think this works better than elections for an
actual functioning working group. We have elections for the guidance
and oversight groups (FESCo and two full-vote council seats.)


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Remy DeCausemaker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:34:37AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Speaking for the Server WG, we found that just allowing people to
> > carry on until they feel like they're not willing to do it any more
> > was a reasonable balance. We have had some turnover at times and it's
> > been pretty smooth.
> >
> > Once someone steps down, we seek out replacements and then vote
> > majority (but seeking consensus) for who will fill their seat.
>
>  Yeah, I think so too — I think this works better than elections for an
>  actual functioning working group. We have elections for the guidance
>  and oversight groups (FESCo and two full-vote council seats.) 
Whatever the process, just let commops know when you want to publicize
the nominations/results on commblog :)
--RemyD.



-- 
Remy DeCausemaker
Fedora Community Lead & Council
<decause(a)redhat.com&gt;
https://whatcanidoforfedora.org

[Justin W. Flory]

On 03/15/2016 07:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  Also, now is the time to nail down any bikeshed painting anyone has
> on
>  Modules WG vs Modularity WG vs Modularization WG. (Modularizing WG?
>  Modulatory WG? Modulating WG? Okay time for some coffee.)
>  
A little bit of searching around showed me "Modularity" seems to be the 
academically-preferred term (versus Modularization and other versions). 
So the Modularity WG sounds like the safest bet for an official name to 
me. :)

--
Cheers,
Justin W. Flory
jflory7(a)gmail.com