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

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:36:17PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > The repercussions of this difference area big enough that I think it should
> > be considered a separate proposal -- it makes the composition of the
> ... how so? This isn't obvious to me from reading the proposal, and reading
> the meeting logs. Is the concern that if the council has actual
> decision-making power that it needs to be fully represenative of all teams
> (proportionally or otherwise)?  I understand the idea there, but even at the
> advisory council we should be working towards as much representation as
> possible.

Maybe I'm overstating it. The two things I see are:

 - When the group has formal decision-making power, it matters a lot more
   who exactly is on the group. At Flock, we talked quite a bit about the
   idea of having a rather fluid membership in the FPL-decides model, with
   people pulled in on the fly as appropriate for a particular situation,
   maybe only for a short time. Especially if there's voting and
   vote-counting, a body with decision-making power needs to be more
   formalized. That's not necessarily bad, just different.

 - If the decision-making power is vested in one person, I think there's a
   strong case for having a separate "watchdog" sort of body. If the
   representative group is itself more than advisory, that doesn't seem
   necessary to me. 

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