[Request for Comments] Governance change for Fedora Project

[Ben Cotton]

My initial reaction to this proposal was "what did I just read?" At
first glance, it looked like a move from a democracy to a
dictatorship. I even used the phrase "the Shuttleworthization of
Fedora." Having taken the time to process the proposal, as well as
look at the the accompanying material, my reaction has shifted. In the
process of writing about the parts of the proposal I'd like to keep, I
realize that I essentially came up with the same proposal in different
terms. My two point summary:

* Lengthen board terms to reduce turnover (I'm not necessarily in
favor of the indefinite terms as presented, but one year is too short)
* Change the board from being entirely at-large to being
representative of major constituencies

The Fedora Board, at least from the perspective of an irregular
contributor, is indeed a very passive organization. To some degree, I
find that appropriate for our community, but I can appreciate the
arguments that a more active board would benefit the community and the
product we labor to produce. The questions that arise are: "how active
should the board be?" and "how do we structure the board such that it
meets this need?"

My concern is that we're addressing the second question before
addressing the first. We don't know where we're going, but we know how
we're going to get there! The thread on board-discuss back in
September was unclear about the intended relationship between a
re-imagined board and FESCo. The proposal as presented offers no
additional clarity. The proposal talks of leading and doing without
really talking about the scope of responsibility. Perhaps that's the
main problem with the board as currently constructed?


-- 
Ben Cotton