Board/Project Governance

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 2013-09-11 7:57, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I will buy you a hot dog if you did one or the other. :)
>
> The overall lack of commenting really kind of baffles me still.  Now I
> can't tell if it's simply apathy, "silence means agreement", or some
> kind of boycott.
>
> At this point I'd almost welcome a 200 email flamefest.  Maybe I
> should just suggest disbanding the Board entirely.

I have been waiting to hear other community members' thoughts as I mull 
the question over myself.

My philosophy is that the board's job is primarily to make sure people 
are empowered to drive the project forward.  The board shouldn't have to 
be the group driving change, and the fact that we now have a major 
project-changing proposal being driven by the rest of the community is a 
great testament to that.  That the board has had to do little but take 
on an advisory role in recent days is an indication of success, not 
failure, because it means people have been able to continue to drive the 
project without having us stand in the way.

>> So when I see a proposal like this - there are obviously some added benefits; an opportunity for better coordination / problem discovery as we re-think ourselves for the foreseeable future is the most immediate thing. Drawbacks: People delegated by their teams, presumably because they are good at what they do and are well-integrated with the team enough to know what is going on, will have less time to do those things they are good at doing. And sometimes it may be the bulk of what time they have to dedicate to Fedora on a weekly basis.
>
> Yes, there's a possibility the delegates will spend less time doing,
> but I honestly don't foresee that being massively so.

Some of the committees you mentioned haven't always had board 
representation because few to none of its members bothered to run in the 
first place.  Guaranteeing someone from each of these groups a seat may 
change that, but would that actually cause people to become more 
interested in participating on the board?

>> I also see this bordering on being a "place for permission" or a place for bypassing appropriate groups to solve a problem. Which tends to wear on people's souls who are serving. One of the nice things about the board - of course, the crazy libertarian in me may be showing through here - is that they have really have limited power. We can't snap our fingers and make anyone do anything; things are done by those willing to do the work.
>
> The proposal doesn't change the scope of power (or lack thereof).  It
> simply addresses, in more specific terms, what the seats on the Board
> are for.

Not just what they are for, but *who* they are for.  Given the fact that 
the board largely acts in an advisory capacity these days, I think that 
the additional breadth of knowledge that a more diverse membership could 
bring could be quite a boon for the project.  It might cost me my seat 
as well, but it's worth that if that puts the project in a much better 
position.

>> Nonetheless: My main concern is that we are not burning people out, not introducing additional barriers to contribution, not adding significant amounts of process without reducing process in other areas, not having to coordinate 45 elections somehow magically.
>
> Yes, good things to avoid.  I don't believe the proposal adds a huge
> amount of process or increases any barriers.  As for elections, I'm
> not sure they'll really be impacted at all.  If anything, it's one
> less election to run where we only get 2% voter turnout anyway.

It could potentially add an election within each group, but since the 
decision of what is most appropriate would be up to the groups 
themselves it's doesn't seem like something to be particularly concerned 
about.

--
Garrett Holmstrom