Appointment of Board Members.

[David Nalley]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> >From the meeting, reworded to start discussion.
>
> Currently the Fedora board is made of 9 members with 4 of them being
> appointed. What are the benefits of this arrangement, and is there a
> path where the Board could move to being completely elected?


So I think the pro of an all elected board is:
* Makes RHT look VERY community friendly (and generally I believe them to be).
* Makes more seats open, which may let the community completely
restructure the composition of the board.

The cons:
* The community might completely restructure the composition of the board :)
* There is a bit of apathy on the part of the electorate - which means
it doesn't take much to swing things at the moment.

I don't think there is a risk to RHT 'losing control' of the project.
I think that for several reasons; first, we have a history of electing
community members who also happen to be RHT employees (probably for
the same reason they are RHT employees, their competency) In the most
recent election, 66% of the elected seats went to community members
who are RHT employees) Second, the FPL has veto power - which is yet a
further safeguard to RHT's interests.

All of that said, I think that given the seemingly apathetic
electorate, that like the currently elected slots, if there aren't
enough nominations for the seats, the number of seats not filled
should, for that term, revert to appointment slots.