[Request for Comments] Governance change for Fedora Project

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Greg DeKoenigsberg
<greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Greg DeKoenigsberg
> <greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:38:37PM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Greg DeKoenigsberg
>>>> <greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>> The corollary to this proposal: a significant number of these
>>>> committee heads would need to be *actually elected*, and not appointed
>>>> by fiat. Perhaps FESCO would be exempted.  Red Hat would need to be
>>>> comfortable with such a structure, of course.
>>>
>>> I think you should go back and read the content from the meeting.  The
>>> proposal isn't markedly different from this suggestion, except that it
>>> doesn't require that each and every team have a member in the council,
>>> but rather that groups of teams might be combined to provide a member.
>>> And it doesn't dictate that the FPL appoint blindly, but rather that
>>> these groups could select a member.  I feel that consensus would be a
>>> better method than election, but neither way is ruled out.
>>
>> Hey, I knew it was a good idea!
>>
>> (Got a link for when I learn to read?)
>
> nvm, it was all in the first email in the thread.  I just didn't
> understand that proposal to be substantially the same as my proposal.
> I'll drill down on those slides.

Yep. +1.

--g