Board/Project Governance

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 09/06/2013 03:52 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2013 7:20 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg at gmail.com 
> <mailto:johannbg at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/06/2013 10:45 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>
> ...
> >
> > Given that the hiring apparatus within Red Hat is still in the 
> habbit of inventing position within the project and placing people 
> outside the community within it, something I thought had been 
> successfully dealt with and buried in the past within Red Hat, I have 
> to say as long as these representatives aren't RH employees with the 
> exception of the FPL it might work.
> ...
> > JBG
>
> If a subcommunity wants to appoint someone to represent them, they 
> should have authority in that choice.
>

Precisely

>   I would be against arbitrarily restricting the communities' choice 
> of representative based on any employer, Red Hat or otherwise.
>

As am I but when an individual has been hired for an job opening that is 
called "Fedora's QA Community Manager" within Red Hat and he himself 
calls himself "QA community liaison" then it's pretty evident that Red 
Hat has decided for us who's supposed to be representing the QA 
community in something like Josh's proposal on behalf of our QA community.

And this is the second time we are given this "special treatment" from 
Red Hat within our community and to add insult to injury none of our 
projects liaisons within Red Hat appear to have been aware of this, 
which means that there's an entity within Red Hat that just runs around 
creates "community positions" then hires people outside our communities 
to fill those position and then plants those individuals in our 
communities without even informing the relevant Fedora people and is 
expecting them to just walk in there and take charge while the community 
bends over and accepts that reality.

The fact is that we abolished any kind of governing infrastructure 
within the QA community a while back for two reasons 1)  the QA 
community cant rely on Red Hat employees ( I think I'm going through my 
third or fourth one now that is supposed to be some kind of leader 
within the community according to RH )  and 2) it does not really make 
sense since we are one of the projects service sub-community.

We dont even prevent people from implementing their ideas to improve the 
community.

We only share opinions between ourselves on those ideas and depending 
how good or bad people think they are, people will jump in and help 
implementing them ( or not ) but in the end of the day it's those 
individual(s) idea and his/hers/theirs free time to spend implementing 
it and who's fit to judge how other people spend their own free time.
( I personally am just quite happy and satisfied that people are willing 
to spend some of their free time in our QA community or in other sub 
community within our project ).

Time will always tell if those ideas and the implementation of them will 
become a success or failure and it truly would be a shame to lose the 
opportunity for an idea or an spin off or alternative implementation to 
turn into something good just because there was an majority within our 
community that was opposed to the idea and killed it in birth.

> Appointment from outside the community of someone that does not 
> participate in the group they represent is a different issue, and not 
> one that appears to be a part of this proposal.
>

In both those cases those individuals where from outside the community 
and Fedora in general so you can understand my concern in that regard.

JBG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20130906/eedd8671/attachment.html>