Board/Project Governance

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----- 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. :)

The overall lack of commenting really kind of baffles me still.  Now I
can't tell if it's simply apathy, "silence means agreement", or some
kind of boycott.

At this point I'd almost welcome a 200 email flamefest.  Maybe I
should just suggest disbanding the Board entirely.

> 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.

Yes, there's a possibility the delegates will spend less time doing,
but I honestly don't foresee that being massively so.

> 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.

The proposal doesn't change the scope of power (or lack thereof).  It
simply addresses, in more specific terms, what the seats on the Board
are for.

> 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. :)

The FPL has veto power.  I believe that has never been used, but if
we're worried about the _people_ on the Board sidestepping rules we
have other larger problems and that hammer will need to be swung.  If
we're worried about people not on the Board sidestepping rules, then
that's something the Board, in any configuration, should deal with
anyway.

> 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.

Yes, good things to avoid.  I don't believe the proposal adds a huge
amount of process or increases any barriers.  As for elections, I'm
not sure they'll really be impacted at all.  If anything, it's one
less election to run where we only get 2% voter turnout anyway.

josh