Looking for feedback on Fedora COC Enforcement Draft

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:50:54 -0500
Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Brian Pepple
> <bpepple at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 23:15 -0500, Max Spevack wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, seth vidal wrote:
> >> >
> >> > How is the CWG appointed/elected? How long are they granted
> >> > seats?
> >
> > This current make-up of the CWG has been given a one-year term
> > limit. We haven't yet worked on a recommendation to the Board on
> > how to handle future appointment/elections for the CWG, since we
> > wanted to get the COC stuff finished first.
> 
> In light of that, it might be better to change the final decision
> makers to the Board.  Having a deciding body with a 1 year term limit
> and no succession plan in place seems slightly wrong.  My suggestion
> is to make the last bullet read:
> 
> * The final decision takes place with the Fedora Board, or a delegate
> of their choosing.
> 
> That still allows the CWG to act but covers the document if the CWG is
> disbanded.

Yeah, that seems like a good change to me. If the CWG doesn't exist
past it's one year mandate this would allow the board to handle this or
delegate. 

kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20110302/8298aa5f/attachment-0001.bin