Board/Project Governance

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:57:56 -0400,
   Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> I'm curious as to what people think.  I'm putting this out there as a
>> discussion starter.  Hopefully the discussion it generates is positive
>> and thought provoking.
>
>So, I was serious when I said the above.  I mean, I figured maybe
>comments would be light on Friday, but it's been 3 days and only two
>people have made any comments at all (thank you).  None of the Board
>members have said anything.
>
>Or have I done the impossible?  Have I proposed something that is
>either universally agreeable or universally hated?  Seems unlikely.

Partly, I'm not sure how big a difference this will really make. I think 
the main point of the two appointed positions is to make sure there is 
diversity, similar to what your proposal is trying to do.

Your proposal does need some more detailing before it's really ready 
to implement. One significant issue is, what if no one on a group wants 
to be on both that group and the board at the same time? Board work 
is a lot different than working on many of the functional teams. (Several 
people seemed to have burned out pretty quickly being on the board.) 
Is there going to be some kind of guidance issued on how teams are 
going to pick their board representative and how long that person will 
serve? Could this result in times when too much of the board turns over 
at once? Some more documentation on what kind of work and time commitments 
are expected from board members is probably needed, so that people have 
a better idea of what they are signing up for. Compared to other groups, 
I think the full ramifications of being a board member is less visible 
than with other groups. That would be nice to see whether the method 
for choosing board members changes or not.