Trends - how to save Fedora ?

[JB]

Rahul Sundaram <metherid <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> On 11/14/2011 01:04 AM, JB wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Perhaps no fork would be required. 
> 
> Even if it is "required", it is a lot of work and I am not sure anyone
> with just a opinion would be willing to sign up for it.
> 
> RH could release tight control of Fedora
> > for its own interest.
> 
> Be more specific.  Describe in a lot more detail what changes you want
> to see and how you are willing to help.
> 
> Rahul

This is actually pretty simple, for me at least :-)

You start with governing status by adding some important statements that
would define Fedora uneqivocally in UNIX-like camp (by explicitly stating
it in context of project's goals and people's participation) and thus create
its most important identity that would attract like-minded and capable
people.

With regard to composition of governing bodies, it is not that Fedora would
start from scratch.

There are already capable people in and around Fedora (current and former
members) who would continue their work.
I would make provision for formal participation of users by reserving seat(s)
for them. There are users on this list who have practical experience in
all aspects of system administration, software development, management.
They are mature, conservative, progressive, balanced, with qualities.

There is one important assumption here - they should not become candidates to
Fedora governing bodies in order to obtain employment with RH (you would want
to avoid the repeat of the current situation, with all its implications,
wouldn't you ?).

Also, one should be clear - an election could not be an act of filling in
free space by people who would be speechless or subservient to some real or
imaginary authority. They would represent classes of members and non-members
(devs, users, etc) by first subjecting themselves to their scrutiny and
selection criteria, and next having their voice heard in decision processes.

I am a fan of a so called "core team" concept a la FreeBSD, kind of
meritocracy, but selected in popular elections, on a rotational and longer
term basis.

I would create a body of "wise men" (elected for a fixed term, without
executive powers, but accountable to nobody !).
They would serve as an advisory and balancing voice in the background. They
would have the right to participate in all formal bodies' activities.
One important condition: they would not be allowed to be "plonked" by random
and clueless rednecks !

There would be a restriction on a number of people representing a particular
continent, company, or organization at a time.

People would have to learn how to be responsible in their election choices,
but perhaps some mechanism should be put in place to eliminate any attempts
to monopolize the process or to misuse it by silly or dangerous people.

You would build in checks and balances, but without compromising executive
effectiveness, or allowing any kind of corruption, or "rule of mob".

JB