Board/Project Governance

[Robyn Bergeron]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Garrett Holmstrom" <gholms at fedoraproject.org>
> To: advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:25:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Board/Project Governance
> 
> 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.

I suppose I may putting the cart before the horse here, so to speak, but was just thinking about the prospect of the following:
(a) Coordination of additional elections by whichever teams elect to do so
(b) If they are uncoordinated and more or less ad-hoc (everyone on different schedules) - if the election announcements would be endless, cause difficulty in (re)scheduling meetings, etc.
(c) In either an uncoordinated case or a coordinated case - if that winds up being a lot more on the election coordinator's plate

But I agree largely that what is appropriate to each group would be their decision to make; most teams come to consensus without elections anyway on who the leader is or who a representative will be in readiness meetings.

-robyn


> 
> --
> Garrett Holmstrom
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board