Board/Project Governance

[Robyn Bergeron]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer at gmail.com>
> To: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: "Fedora community advisory board" <advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 6:57:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Board/Project Governance
> 
> 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.

I will buy you a hot dog if you did one or the other. :)

I have done a lot of thinking back and forth on this; I don't know that I'm settled either way.

One thing that is important to me that Fedora is a place where you can get things done. Low overhead in terms of process, low bureaucracy, high output. We don't always succeed at that, but I think by and large we do a relatively decent job. The reason this is important is because not everyone has 40 (or 60, or 70) hours a week to spend on doing actual things; barriers in the way of doing things tend to poke inspiration right in the eyeball and kill it in its tracks for people who have less time. I'll also add that one of the most popular reasons cited (to me, anyway) for not re-running for a governance body is that people want to spend less time figuring out how others can do things so they can get back to Doing Things themselves.

It seems to me, as of late, that we are embarking on a lot of things that are going to require a lot more time thinking and debating and being on additional various "governance bodies," for lack of a better term. We are going to be looking at three additional groups, for desktop/workstation, server, and cloud, all requiring people to sit down and hash things out. Yes, I realize there are suggestions on the table for lengthening cycles and so forth to accommodate the re-work, but those bodies will continue to exist beyond that time frame, and it doesn't negate the fact that people like to get in and scratch their respective itches by doing things. On top of that, I continue to contend that taking on that amount of work - three separate products, in essence - will result in an unbearable work load by numerous groups, QA and release engineering most prominently, unless we figure out how to abstract a lot of crap, automate a lot of testing and build processes, etc. The (as I've heard it) NASA saying about "Bigger, Faster, Better - pick the two you want, but you can't have all three," certainly applies here. Which ultimately means that more people will need to sit in more working groups, often at the expense of doing the things they want to do. (Or, alternately, all of those groups will be wholly composed of Daddy Shadowman's employees, which I don't think is a winning situation, either.)

So when I see a proposal like this - there are obviously some added benefits; an opportunity for better coordination / problem discovery as we re-think ourselves for the foreseeable future is the most immediate thing. Drawbacks: People delegated by their teams, presumably because they are good at what they do and are well-integrated with the team enough to know what is going on, will have less time to do those things they are good at doing. And sometimes it may be the bulk of what time they have to dedicate to Fedora on a weekly basis.

I also see this bordering on being a "place for permission" or a place for bypassing appropriate groups to solve a problem. Which tends to wear on people's souls who are serving. One of the nice things about the board - of course, the crazy libertarian in me may be showing through here - is that they have really have limited power. We can't snap our fingers and make anyone do anything; things are done by those willing to do the work. 

On the other hand - what is proposed here is essentially a body composed of people representing those who *are* willing to do the work. Good in some ways; I do worry about the nature of a group of people who do want to get things done to sidestep rules, overlook Freedom, etc., but I suppose we're not the NSA. :)

Nonetheless: My main concern is that we are not burning people out, not introducing additional barriers to contribution, not adding significant amounts of process without reducing process in other areas, not having to coordinate 45 elections somehow magically.

And those are my rambling thoughts.

-Robyn





> 
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board