[fab] Succession Planning

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 18:08 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > As I mentioned briefly in Tuesday's meeting, I placed a short draft of
> > an elections document at:
> > 
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning
> > 
> > I'd appreciate any additional review and comment.  (Comments may take
> > the form of page edits.)
> > 
> 
> Agreed on 1) and 2)
> 
> on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a 
> limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, 
> whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of 
> their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the 
> Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected 
> position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4)  or within the board?

The point of the 75% is to keep all the Red Hat seats or all the
community seats from turning over at one time in a single election.  In
other words, this measure assures some extra continuity.  AFAIK Max's
position is not an elected one; it's a paid position inside Red Hat and
not subject to election.  We can't really elect someone for Red Hat to
put on salary, but we need that position at the top of the Board to help
drive action in the company when needed.  I thought I had written that
in the plan, but I see now that revision was lost in all my rearranging.
I'll get it back in.  This would better be discussed after Max returns
from vacation, so hold that thought until then.

> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group 
> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has 
> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are 
> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as 
> a requirement might be abused.

How do we define being "part of" a group?  Number of CVS commits?
Number of emails posted to a list?  Time on IRC?  If you can provide an
objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it.

> 5)Adopting the Fedora Extras voting infrastructure  seems a good 
> solution. Is that a generic app or does it require changes?

That's what I thought we should use too; I wanted to see what people
here agreed on.  I think it's pretty generic, but I haven't looked at
the code at all.  (I would probably leave that to someone who understood
it better, truth be told.)

> 6) Unclear on what a 2/3 majority vote by "community" means. Who is the 
> community here? I believe 2/3 majority vote by just the board is enough 
> to decide.

The community is the eligible voters.  I should make that more clear.  A
governing body shouldn't be able to unilaterally change election rules;
that's pretty much a central tenet of voting rights.  Dictators for
life, anyone?  No, let's make sure the community retains as much say as
possible.


-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
       Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
    Fedora Docs Project:  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20060722/a39d9dac/attachment.bin