[fab] Succession Planning

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> 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?

I don't think so; that's Max's job.  Otherwise it's just adding another
level of middle management.  But hey, I could be wrong.

> >> 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.

Other than "cladone," then, and in "approved" status in the additional
group.  OK, I'll buy that for a dollar, +1.

> >> 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?

That's a good question.  Referenda normally need a specific trigger
point, like signatures on a petition.  What is a reasonable trigger, ten
percent of the eligible voters?  Fifteen?  More?

-- 
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/20060722/4bd3ee2a/attachment.bin