Board/Project Governance

[Stephen John Smoogen]

Hey guys, I was just wondering if there was any progress on this in the
last 6 months.
On Sep 12, 2013 5:44 PM, "Matthew Garrett" <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:

> Fedora is fundamentally a somewhat anarchic collective. Our governance
> model is built around fostering coordination rather than leadership. In
> that context, the existing board structure is an obvious failure. The
> meaningful things we do are make decisions on the use of project IP and
> come up with handwavy ideas about project direction. We're theoretically
> the last line of appeal against any other decisions, but in most cases
> we're less qualified to make that decision than whichever group did so
> originally.
>
> Handling project IP is important. I don't think we need a board to do
> it. Determining project direction is important. I think an
> elected-but-not-actually-representative board is the wrong body to do
> that. Being entirely honest, the reason I stood for the board was that I
> was concerned about the potential for a refocusing of the project's
> direction in a way that didn't interest me. It's great that people chose
> to elect me, but right now I have no other involvement in Fedora's
> governance. My contributions to Fedora are fairly minimal - I work on a
> few tiny corners of some important packages, but otherwise I just talk a
> lot. The fact that it was so easy for me to get on the board and
> influence these decisions is arguably a failure in process.
>
> So, a council-type arrangement seems entirely appropriate. I endorse
> this proposal.
>
> --
> Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/attachments/20140804/29ccf927/attachment.html>