[fab] Succession Planning

[Rahul]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> 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.

Right. So then do we need a elected lead?


> 
>> 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.

Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system.

> 
>> 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.

So what is the procedure for community to bring a change?

Rahul