propsal summaries, moving forward [was Re: [Request for Comments] Governance change for Fedora Project]

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Okay, so, I think I'm hearing two basic proposals here. Let's see if we can
> get them pinned down into a decide-betweenable form, and proceed from there.
>
>
> A. The Flock Proposal (a.k.a. Josh/Toshio/Haïkel/Christoph/Paul/etc., or
>    Thundercougarfalconbird)
>
>    - Replace current board with new body
>    - New body has advisory role to FPL; FPL makes final decisions,
>      striving as always for consensus where possible
>    - Keeps all current responsibilies of board
>      - some things, like trademarks and community dispute resolution
>        may be delegated to subcommittees
>    - Additionally, stronger charter for active leadership; creating
>      and implementing shared vision
>    - Composed of representatives from various Fedora committees,
>      elected at the committee level; exact structure to be determined,
>      but also flexible as needs of project change
>    - Overall "org chart" for Fedora a little more pyramid-structured, with
>      this clearly at the top.

This seems accurate to me.

> B. Two-Body Proposal (a.k.a. what I think I'm hearing from John)
>
>    - Keep current board basically as it exists now in practice
>    - Not necessarily as it is written up, which differs from that
>      - specifically, "The Fedora Project Board is the executive team of the
>        Fedora Project that makes guiding decisions and leads the project
>        forward" would be rewritten to better reflect the idea of a "supreme
>        court" rather than an _executive_ body.
>      - in "responsibilities" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board,
>        strike "oversight of subprojects" and "issues of strategic, as
>        opposed to tactical, importance for Fedora that require leadership
>        and vision from above the team or subproject level to achieve
>    - As Greg defined the terms, more concerned with governance, less with
>      leadership
>    - Possibily additional governance roles, including more direct handling
>      of community budget
>    - Not mentioned, but putting this out there: we could consider switching
>      this to being entirely elected at large rather than having appointed
>      slots.
>    - Chair of this body not necessarily FPL; in fact, FPL not necessarily a
>      member

Given this body would still be the "supreme court" for decision
making, would the FPL still retain veto over it?  I would assume so.

>    - New executive council specifically tasked with refining and furthering
>      the project's vision

If the council sets the vision, does it have to be approved by the
supreme court board given it has an impact on Fedora's values?

>    - More leadership, less governance
>    - Probably composed almost exactly as proposal "A"
>    - Except, unlike "A", this body wouldn't handle trademarks, community
>      conflicts, or fundamental questions of Fedora values
>    - It would, however, handle big things: I would expect that under this
>      model most of the Fedora.next proposal would have gone here rather than
>      to the Board unless someone specifically raised particular issues
>      having to do with Friends/Freedom/Features/First.

Same FPL veto question here.  So would the veto extend to both the
board and the council?

>    - Operational org chart still basically pyramid structured with new
>      council at the peak and the board in sideways watchdog role

The overall dynamic between these two bodies is confusing to me.  It
would help if there was some clear definition of the interaction that
is expected.  Should the council forge ahead and only consult the
board if requested to by the board or a community member?  Does the
council have to continuously get OKs from the board?  Etc.

> Do these seem like reasonable statements of the proposals?

I think they're fairly accurate based on what I've understood from the
discussions.

> Are there refinements to be made?

Always ;)

> I'm going to be taking a vacation next week, but then, as my kids' school
> starts up again in September and regular routine is re-established, it will
> be nose-directly-to-the-grindstone. I'd like to call for a basic decision
> here by, say, second week in September, so we can have clarity moving
> forward.

Sounds workable.  I'd suggest putting a deadline for _new_ proposals
to be made by the end of next week.  That way we have roughly two
weeks to look over the possibilities.

josh