propsal summaries, moving forward [was Re: [Request for Comments] Governance change for Fedora Project]

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:32:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I think that leads to a completely inactive and inattentive Board.  If
> the Council never bothers to contact the Board, then big changes can
> happen without the Board even being aware, or aware of the
> implications down the road.  How would a Board know what the community
> wants if they're only involved in the large changes infrequently and
> on request only?

I think the basic answer here is "trust in democracy" -- this board
(the supervisory/"court" style one) might be hands-off but should be
comprised of members who take the role of representing the community values
seriously and actively. If they're not, they should be replaced at the next
election.

As John says, "The Board is part of the community. They aren't living under
ground and only coming up when a ticket gets opened." I think the counter
argument is that it kind of feels like we *are* only doing that, and for
that matter, not really fully waking to deal with those tickets. Maybe
that's not completely fair, but I can see some truth to it. The fact that
board elections have so little interest, both in candidates and votes, seems
to support that.

It's possible that being more forward about this future boards' role as
_primarily_ stewardship of Fedora values would help here, along with more
emphasis on that at election time.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader