Elected/Appointed Board

[Jonathan Roberts]

Thanks Paul :) I look forward to hearing how this develops and think
it's definitely a step in the right direction. I still have some
reservations about the system, even if the majority is reversed. The
problems I still see with this, and whether these are in any way valid
I have no idea but I'd love to hear some feedback about it, are thus:

Fedora claims to be a community distribution that *is* more than a
beta for RHEL.

I believe the quality of the product that our community creates is a
clear expression of this fact; the make-up of the board, however, does
not. With things as they stand, Red Hat has an overarching influence
on the direction of Fedora and has enormous influence in the direction
of both Fedora's development and community. Even if the majority were
reversed, with the chair having a veto and Red Hat remaining as the
single biggest presence on the board, this could remain the case.

I trust Red Hat based on their previous actions, and I trust the
members of the board as a result of the work that I've done with you
and all that I've read. Should these matters be left entirely to
trust, however? While a dramatic comparison, the founders of the US
didn't think so, and neither do I think RMS did when he first
formulated the GPL. Another significant question, beyond trust is, can
Fedora truly be seen as (or truly be) a distribution that is run and
produced by the community, that is more than a beta for RHEL, while a
single company maintains the most significant influence over the
project.

Another interesting comparison is to England. We have an entirely
elected lower house, the Commons, while our upper house is partially
elected, partially appointed, and partially made up of hereditary
peers - the Lords. The current debate here is whether hereditary and
appointed peers are an acceptable state of affairs in a modern
democracy, especially following a recent scandal where the government
was found to have appointed some peers following large donations to
the party. I believe it's a similar question in the Fedora Project
(that's not to say I believe anybody currently involved in Fedora or
Red Hat is likely to engage in similar actions!), although
interestingly we have no wholly elected lower house who holds greater
power than the upper house; in fact, it's the reverse!

That Red Hat is our financial backer is a significant part of the
equation, but it's not the only one. Without the time contributed by
members of the community, the money would mean nothing, especially in
a distribution where we hold as a matter of pride that over half our
packages are maintained by those outside Red Hat. In my opinion, this
time is as valuable a commodity as the money put in by Red Hat and as
such questions the justification for the chair being both solely
appointed by Red Hat and having a veto.

I think this sums up my concerns about the current system. As I've
tried to stress, I have no idea of their validity and I hope they
don't offend anybody. I have complete faith in the current board and
Red Hat as things stand, and I admire the work done by all enormously;
this is the reason I choose to spend my time contributing to this
project in whatever way I can.

Best wishes all,

Jon