[Request for Comments] Governance change for Fedora Project

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:57:36AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> Leadership happens when a person sees a problem that needs to be
> solved, looks around and don't see anyone solving it, and then takes a
> deep breath and steps up and says "I think we should solve this
> problem, and here's what I'm going to do about it."
> 
> Governance happens when people are competing over scarce resources --
> time to implement ideas, space on the home page, money for events --
> and someone needs to decide who gets what resources.
> 
> Is the consensus that Fedora needs more governance, or more leadership?

Something like this: current Fedora governance doesn't enable leadership.

I've been working on that "deep breath" approach with Fedora.next, and I
think the current structure in combination with the size of the project
makes it more difficult than it should be to do anything across Fedora as a
whole. There was a conversation in the Flock session which didn't quite get
recorded in the notes but which I think is very interesting here: Vit
Ondruch noted that Fedora.next didn't come from the Board, and wondered if
it was at all "approved" or "official". In fact it is, but the current board
approach to this is basically saying "okay, we won't stand in the way of
this".

As I imagine the ideal, the board or council would be somewhere were people
could bring ideas -- even if they aren't originated there -- and, for
example, the representative for the Fedora Ambassadors could look at the
proposal from that point of view, communicate concerns back and forth with
the larger ambassadors group, and if the proposal is accepted, communicate
_that_ back, including what that means. As we do it now, it basically
requires anyone with an idea to be fully aware of
<https://plus.google.com/+ChristophWickert/posts/UuU81LNZ27F?pid=6045572712375942674&oid=114008335300241090782>
and the complicated interconnections between the myriad different groups,
and to socialize and negotiate plans with each from the bottom up. That
provides a strong defense against bad ideas -- but an equally strong defense
against good ones.

We don't need *more* governance as you've defined it, but we do need it to
be more effective, and, actually, specifically in the areas you've
mentioned. I'll dodge the difficult issue of "time", but for the home page,
take a look at the sub-projects listed under
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki> -- this does not
reflect the current state of the project. And event money *could* be
allocated in a way that would connect with higher-level strategic goals. We
don't need this all to be more heavyweight by any stretch, but the
generally-reactive nature of the current board means that these things don't
currently happen at all. I'll take my share of blame in not having
particularly stepped up to reorganize some of the things which clearly need
doing -- but, also, there's a systemic problem where if _everything_ needs
someone to "take a deep breath", we'll burn out everyone who wants to help.
We need a structure where people who _do_ step on in that way are better
supported.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader