[Request for Comments] Governance change for Fedora Project

[inode0]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:28:27AM -0500, inode0 wrote:
>> "Like any board of directors, the Fedora Project Board advises Fedora
>> leadership and helps the project pursue broad goals. The  Board does
>> not generally implement practices, but instead relies on the
>> recognized community leadership including but  not limited to the
>> Fedora Engineering Steering Committee to do so."
>>
>> While I admit the role of a governance board is somewhat flexible I
>> think it generally does not include the intended role of the proposed
>> replacement body. That role would fall into the "... but instead
>> relies on the recognized community leadership  including but not
>> limited to the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee to do so" part of
>> the above description.
>
> I think I follow what you're saying here, and if so, I think that this is
> part of the intention in calling for a new "Fedora Council" body rather than
> a board restructuring.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should retain a (perhaps even more pared-down)
> board in addition to this new body? Effectively, a supervisory board and an
> executive council?

I'm not suggesting anything at this point but from my perspective we
are conflating the roles of a governance board with the roles of those
making desired things happen. There has always been overlap and I'm
sure there always would be overlap since probably at least most of any
governance board will be active making things happen in some other
areas of the project.

>From an organization standpoint I would be immediately more
comfortable with a new body whose primary or sole mission was to
further the implementation of the project's vision.

The board's role would not necessarily be more pared-down. It would
continue doing what it has been doing and could have additional
governance responsibilities added over time, like the ability to
allocate some resources among competing demands.

>> Some of the other things the Board does now that I haven't seen any
>> description of how they will be handled by this replacement body or by
>> any other person or group include:
>> * Granting of trademark use as outlined in the Trademark Guidelines.
>
> It's my impression that this generally is a matter of making sure basic
> standards are followed and checking a box; this could be delegated to Fedora
> Legal, with any exceptional cases dealt with individually by the council,
> and with any future changes to the guidelines made by the council in
> consultation with Fedora Legal.

It could be but I don't favor shifting a community responsibility that
it takes seriously back inside a box.

>> * Being the ultimate body to resolve disputes of either a personal
>> nature or of an intergroup nature within the Fedora Project that fail
>> to be resolved through other means.
>
> I think this would be an area for the council. I'd like to see a more
> active -- proactive -- Community Working Group handling the bulk of the
> former.

I think I felt this same way initially until I spoke with CWG members
and learned how carefully they weighed the pros and cons of this when
deciding that their role should be purely one of mediation. I don't
know how active or inactive they are in being proactive since I'm sure
most such activity would not be done in public view. While any
respected group of community members could fill the role of making
decisions when mediation fails, why dump such a troublesome matter
onto those working actively to promote our vision internally to the
project?

If the primary goal of the Council is to help make the project move
forward toward a shared vision I don't see a benefit to dumping other
tedious and unpleasant tasks on top of that.

>> * Deciding questions that fall at the edges of the the Fedora
>> Project's philosophy (these largely fall into the area of deciding
>> whether something proposed somewhere in the project is consistent with
>> the values of the project as described in the four foundations).
>
> This is what I spoke of as "the Surpreme Court of Fedora Values". I agree
> that it is hugely important *and* that whatever method we have for
> addressing this needs to be representative of the community voice as a
> whole.

More important than being representative of the community voice at any
particular point in time to me is that the community retain a strong
voice in who those representatives are and the ability to change them.

John