Board Composition Proposal

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/17/10 8:31 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> When I was a member of the board and we went through a round of
>>> appointments, all appointment candidates were discussed within the
>>> board, and I don't recall there being an appointment that did not have
>>> the full current board approval.  That may not be codified in any
>>> written bylaw, but it seemed to be standard practice, and thus little
>>> chance of a renegade FPL stuffing the board with yes-people.
>>>
>> I think you're missing the point by thinking of them as "yes-people".
>> I'm not talking about the FPL putting people in that will agree with
>> everything that they believe but rather certain things that they
>> believe and are essential to the FPL's vision of Fedora.  Think back
>> to anything that is controversial... let's say updates vision.  If the
>> FPL thinks that Fedora needs to worry more about stability, the FPL
>> has a wide range of candidates who have weighed in on the question
>> asking for more stability in Fedora.  People who are primarily known
>> for other work and bring other talents to the table but who have,
>> because the debate was so wide ranging, made clear where they stand.
>> Similarly, if the FPL thinks that Fedora needs to stay closer to its
>> roots, they have a diverse set of candidates to select from as well.
>
> My what a paranoid view you have.
>
> Also, I rather take offense that you consider a more conservative
> approach to updates to our stable releases counter to the "roots" of
> Fedora, particularly when you consider that Fedora is rooted in Red Hat
> Linux.
>

I realized after sending that you might consider my last post
non-excellent, so let me try to explain why I think your post is
coming out of the blue instead of actually hearing what I'm saying.

It's not paranoid.  It's about an FPL doing what he sees as best for
Fedora and other people standing outside that line trying to achieve a
different change in opposition to the FPL.  Let's say that the  FPL
sees a bunch of people running around trying to change Fedora away
from its roots of being a very stable, powerful distribution by
pushing updates willy-nilly; an effort that's likely leading to the
decline in the Fedora userbase that he's seen recently.  He thinks
this is the number one threat to Fedora's existence.  So when it comes
time to make appointments to the Board, is he more likely to choose
people who are otherwise full of qualifications but happen to think
that unrestricted updates are a good thing for Fedora or is he more
likely to choose people who are otherwise full of qualifications but
happen to agree with him that updates need to be moderated?

I think that it's very reasonable for the FPL to do the latter.

Now, let's say that you're one of the people who is running around
thinking that pushing updates is a good idea for Fedora.  You've
probably also deluded yourself into thinking that that's something
that has made Fedora great from day-one.  You see the increasing
number of people who are using. Now, how are you going to effect
change?  From your viewpoint, you need to control all of the elected
seats in order to have a simple majority in this equation.

-Toshio