Board/Project Governance

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> Josh Boyer (jwboyer at gmail.com) said:
>> 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.
>
> The suggested composition of representatives from existing groups that all
> have their own 'day jobs' in Fedora seems like an organization model that
> optimizes for better focus around 'doing the things that we are doing', as
> opposed to 'doing new things that we aren't doing'.

It's a definite possibility, yes.  One would hope the FPL and the
group on the Board would be cognizant of this though.

> This is neither good nor bad - it's just a choice. Is there an idea that
> something like the move to the multiple products that Matt Miller is
> proposing would be more or less likely to come from this new sort of
> organization?

Frankly, I think "new things that we aren't doing" very very rarely
come from on high.  It's just not a model that the Fedora project
itself follows.  The new stuff comes from those doing the work, and at
times from the fringe.  I cannot think of a time where the Board came
down and said "we should be doing this, go do it".

I've always viewed the Board as more of a checkpoint on the bigger
picture for a new thing rather than an originator of it.  Does
NewThing meet with the Fedora goals, does NewThing seem worthwhile,
etc.

josh