[Request for Comments] Governance change for Fedora Project

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:57:36AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
>>> Leadership happens when a person sees a problem that needs to be
>>> solved, looks around and don't see anyone solving it, and then takes a
>>> deep breath and steps up and says "I think we should solve this
>>> problem, and here's what I'm going to do about it."
>>>
>>> Governance happens when people are competing over scarce resources --
>>> time to implement ideas, space on the home page, money for events --
>>> and someone needs to decide who gets what resources.
>>>
>>> Is the consensus that Fedora needs more governance, or more leadership?
>>
>> Something like this: current Fedora governance doesn't enable leadership.
>>
>> I've been working on that "deep breath" approach with Fedora.next, and I
>> think the current structure in combination with the size of the project
>> makes it more difficult than it should be to do anything across Fedora as a
>> whole. There was a conversation in the Flock session which didn't quite get
>> recorded in the notes but which I think is very interesting here: Vit
>> Ondruch noted that Fedora.next didn't come from the Board, and wondered if
>> it was at all "approved" or "official". In fact it is, but the current board
>> approach to this is basically saying "okay, we won't stand in the way of
>> this".
>
> I don't think this summarizes accurately how I felt as a board member
> when approving it. I intended and understood that approval to be a
> strong statement to the Fedora community that this was the direction
> the project should go.
>
>> As I imagine the ideal, the board or council would be somewhere were people
>> could bring ideas -- even if they aren't originated there -- and, for
>> example, the representative for the Fedora Ambassadors could look at the
>> proposal from that point of view, communicate concerns back and forth with
>> the larger ambassadors group, and if the proposal is accepted, communicate
>> _that_ back, including what that means.
>
> I have discussed issues and considerations that Fedora.next would have
> in terms of both booth presentations and the choice of media that we
> select to press and distribute at events following the next release
> with the ambassadors in North America. It was just an opening of a
> conversation, I gave my pitch and let them take some time to consider
> it.
>
> I do think that a new organization with this sort of work as its
> primary or sole objective could be much more effective than random
> board members interacting with the silos where board members happen to
> participate.

Way back in the day, before the dawn of time, I'd always hoped that
the board itself would be comprised of the heads of the various
committees, and the FPL as facilitator (and, when need be,
arbitrator).  It never worked out that way.

Perhaps it's worth considering that structure again. An executive
board that consists of the various committee heads. Docs team,
Ambassadors team, FESCO, Web team, etc., all gathering together weekly
to discuss the issues within their teams.  Election no longer happens
at the Board level, but at the committee level, where most of the work
gets done, and where the constituents are closer to the leadership.

--g