On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> === Current Members ===
> * Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison)
> * Matthias Clasen
> * Kalev Lember
> * Ryan Lerch
> * Jens Petersen
> * Christian Schaller
> * Owen Taylor
> * Lukáš Tinkl
> * Christoph Wickert
As mentioned during the IRC meeting, I think that the settling on the number of members,
and names of members, is probably premature, until we have the product requirements
The number and names of the current members are already set for the
initial voting members. That was driven by FESCo to get the WG
started. We can change those members after the PRD and governance
models are approved by FESCo, but for the immediate future the above
people are the voting members.
Specifically on the number of seats, there seemed to be at least
somewhat of a consensus that 9 was a decent number. I wouldn't want
to go any more than 9. 7 would probably also be acceptable. 5 is
starting to get too small, in my opinion.
- the document doesn't mention what happens if a member was to relinquish his seat
the first elections occur.
Correct. There was some discussion in the IRC channel today that
elections in general might be too heavy-weight for this WG. If people
would like, we can use something where people doing great work in the
product are somehow promoted to the WG when a seat vacates for
whatever reason. The packaging group has something like this. I just
want to make sure we have a good mix of continuity and new members so
we don't wind up thrashing decisions while still getting fresh points
This is probably the item in most need of discussion, so I'm
interested in hearing what others suggest. I plan on sending a v2 of
the draft once we get some further details hammered out.
- the vocabulary used in the "making decisions" section is
a little sloppy, in my opinion.
What's a "controversy"? Whose "dissenting views" would be taken
into account? What about
Anything the WG doesn't agree to in the majority? I agree the wording
could be cleared up. I stole it verbatim from the cloud group. Do
you have suggestions here? As for dissenting views, I would like to
think that we listen to all view points from those participating.
Clearly a single person disagreeing isn't going to sway things, but if
there are valid points of disagreement and a number of people are
expressing them, we should at least take the time to understand those.
decisions made upstream, do they get to be vouched for again?
I'm not sure what you mean by vouched for. I don't see a need to have
seats designated explicitly for upstream(s). I would expect any
voting member participating to take both Fedora and whatever upstream
is into consideration. Perhaps waiting for the PRD will help clarify
some of this.