governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:11 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:33:33AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > So in short: The board gives the direction and fesco brings you there.
> > 
> > Well, FExtraSCo also was meant to be a counterpart/weight to RH and
> > representation of the community against RH. It being democratically
> > elected was meant to emphasize its importance and to provide the
> > community with means to identify with FESCo, and thereby provide better
> > acceptance with their decisions.
> 
> But you have the same in the board itself, one part is nominated and
> one part elected. RH always has the last word, but is using it
> benevolently. This wasn't different in previous models - fesco could
> do as it pleased as long as it stayed in the given framework of the
> Fedora mandate/goals which were decided by the board.

>  Same will be true for the future fesco.
Exactly this is the point I want to see changed in near future, and feel
to be inevitable to be changed mid-term if Fedora wants to be a success.

ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, which are
not in the community's interest.

> If you like, you could consider that some part of the fesco
> non-technical powers it once had have been elevated to the board, and
> vice versa the board dropped micro-managing into engineering related
> questions. Since you get to vote part of the board the community has
> not lost any powers.

Well, I'd agree if this FESCo was to replace current FAB or if FAB was
"just consulting FESCo". 

However, as I perceive it, Fedora actually is controlled by FAB, who
leaves some "administrational peanuts" to FESCo - Pretty poor, IMO.

> > As such I find a democratically FESCo superfluous, because such tasks
> > are better performed by technical committees populated with dedicated
> > specialists. FESCo isn't such an entity.
> 
> Well, I think there is some little truth in the part that electing two
> organs may not be really sane, especially if one is above the
> other. But it will be done nonetheless to preserve tradition,
> installed legacy and the current community feeling.
> 
> Maybe one day we'll be only voting a board which will be assigning
> fesco members.
Hmm, my vision of a Fedora government is Fedora to be governed by a
"parliament" populated with both RH and community
delegates/representatives. How to label such a parliament (be it FAB or
FESCo) is secondary.

An alternative would be a classical "two chamber model", with e.g. FESCo
as "parliament/government" drawing the actual decision and FAB as
"second chamber" with veto/objection rights. 

However, both models would require something like a "constitution"
defining detailed procedures.

Ralf