Board Composition Proposal

[inode0]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> +1 from me in theory but -1 for actually doing it.  There's some practical
> problems:
>
> 1) This artificially gives the the board a much higher chance of being even
> more Red Hat based.  We have an unfair advantage in that we can spend more
> time working on Fedora.  Therefore we know more people, have more time to
> campaign, make a difference, etc.  It's not fair to volunteers and would
> skew the board.
>
> June 2008: 3 out of 3 elected were Red Hat
> December 2008: 1 out of 2 were Red Hat
> June 2009: 3 out of 3 elected were Red Hat
> December 2009: 0 out of 2 were Red Hat
> May 2010: 2 out of 3 were Red Hat

Yes, we do elect a lot of contributors who are Red Hat employees. So,
since I don't know who everyone works for it is hard for me to
calculate, how many non-Red Hat people have been appointed? I do know
three off the top of my head but two of them would have been elected
had one more seat been open.

It is funny that this is a reason to retain the appointed seats.
Certainly if we did not elect Red Hat employees that would be a reason
to retain them.

> 2) We don't always have many people run for the Board.  It can be a
> struggle to convince people to run.  Getting appointed to for balance is
> helpful and practical.

Getting more people to run is one of the reasons I want to do this. I
do not believe Toshio is the only person choosing to not run because
of the current structure .

John