Appointment of Board Members.

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:28 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Curious no one on the board suggested this as a benefit during the
> meeting but I can certainly accept it as one.

Shrug. It's happened in the past. It happened when I was on the board.

> While I doubt they would want to, if FESCo and FAmSCo each
> appointed someone they felt would bring value to board and the FPL
> appointed the other two that would go a long way toward alleviating
> the problems as well. (I'm not suggesting this, just making a point.)

First and foremost that I fundamentally disagree that any of the
concerns that have been expressed so far amount to a problem that can
be solved in a restructuring of the number of elected seats.  I also
don't think that a fully elected board is going to do anything to
encourage additional people to stand up and run for a position that is
effectively  asking to be a target for abuse with very little power to
actually get anything done beyond the power of persuasion.  In reality
Infrastructure and FESCo hold far more power to to get crap done. If I
were staging a coup I'd put together a coherent slate of candidates
and define a platform and take over FESCo not the Board.  I think the
idea of a fully elected board magically solving perceived inequalities
or disinterest... naively quaint and built on the assumption that
Fedora works primarily in a top down management structure when it in
fact does not.  I probably have as much influence as I do now off the
board as I did on it...without being shackled to a mandate to listen
to everyone else's gripes and trying to find a way forward.

That being said, from a project governance standpoint there is
certainly room for other subgroups to lobby to have a standing
ex-officio member of the Board at Board meetings in order for better
internal project communication regardless of the break down of
official elected or appointed members.   But I want to _see_ those
groups lobby and make their case as to why they need to have someone
at the meetings all the time and affirm they actually need to work at
the board level instead of just getting crap done via normal cross
project communication channels.  Having an ex-officio member of the
infrastructure team present would seem a good idea at times. Having an
ex-officio member of FESCo would be a good idea at times... and so and
and so on..assuming of course no one on the Board isn't wearing
multiple hats and is acting as a liason to a particular group already.
Unless newer incarnations of the Board are operating differently, its
not fundamentally a vote driven organ of governance. The Board is at
its best when its making consensus based decisions, because ultimately
all the Board can really do is persuade or forbid...and neither of
those powers work very well in a primarily volunteer resources when
backing contentious decisions.

-jef