Board Composition Proposal

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, let's say that you're one of the people who is running around
> thinking that pushing updates is a good idea for Fedora.  You've
> probably also deluded yourself into thinking that that's something
> that has made Fedora great from day-one.  You see the increasing
> number of people who are using. Now, how are you going to effect
> change?  From your viewpoint, you need to control all of the elected
> seats in order to have a simple majority in this equation.

If you are relying on elected power to effect change..instead of
discussion and persuasion..then..uhm... increasing the number of
elected seats does not help.
Right now you have to have 5 elected seats to force through a radical view.
If we move to 9 elected seats.....you still have to have 5 elected
seats to force through a radical view. The math doesn't change...the
difficulty of getting a majority of people elected who take a radical
view doesn't change.   You aren't fundamentally changing the bar to
necessary to ram through a radical change. This whole chain of logic
is just simply wrong.

I cannot stress this enough. You are groping for a reason to support
moving to a fully elected seat because you have a pre-existing
personal preference for elected bodies. I get it. But we must look
past that knee-jerk preference..take a step back and really look at
what the problems are that need to be solved. Making governance
changes that do not specifically address an existing dysfunction is a
recipe to introduce more dysfunction with no observable benefit.

-jef