representative council roles [was Re: [board] #9: board vote on reorganization proposals]

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.09.2014, 08:16 -0400 schrieb Matthew Miller:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:34:05PM -0000, board wrote:
> > >  I'll start working on a draft for what that might look like and post it
> > >  to
> > >  the discuss list in the next couple of days.
> > 
> > That doesn't mean everyone should wait for me, by the way. :) Particularly,
> > I'd love to hear everyone's ideas for translating
> > https://plus.google.com/+ChristophWickert/posts/UuU81LNZ27F?pid=6045572712375942674&oid=114008335300241090782
> > into a reasonable number of council seats which cover the different areas
> > in
> > a meaningful, representative way.
> 
> When I brought up the idea of the council back in 2012, I wanted it to
> be an open group. Groups should be able to send representatives when
> they feel they need a liaison with the rest of the rest of the Fedora
> Project.

Yeah, this really the question if it's coordination group or real body.
To by honest, we miss more that coordination part more than decision making.
Although with more competencies given to more groups, we were able in the
end communicate more effectively and the coordination now really happens
and even automatically in many places! That's amazing :).

> Therefor I wanted it to not be limited to the big projects such as
> packagers and ambassadors, which may or may not already have their own
> bodies, but open for every little SIG or WG.
> 
> During my presentation at FUDCon Blacksburg [1] Dave then brought up the
> issue of scalability and I think he has an important point. Imagine we
> have representatives of 20 groups and each of them just talks for 3
> minutes...

But scalability is really an issue but in the end, it could be pretty
living council - I don't expect everytime everyone would be interested
in all topics. So during releases, it would be more QA and WGs talking
together, in the time of planning, FESCo would be more involved with
more marketing for example.

> So I think the size of the group should be somehow limited, at least if
> we decide to have regular phone or IRC meetings. If we go for the lazy
> consensus however, we are probably able to handle more people.
> 
> This being said we should have permanent members for the biggest and
> most important groups but also be able to invite representatives from
> other groups if necessary.
> 
> Say we had a group of 9 permanent members I propose the following
> permanent representatives (in no particular order)
>      1. Workstation WG
>      2. Server WG
>      3. Cloud WG
>      4. FESCo
>      5. FAmSCO
>      6. QA
>      7. Infrastructure
>      8. Release Engineering
>      9. Marketing
> 
> And of course the FPL.

And as written above, this touches quite a lot of the coordination part,
I'm as PGM trying to do (and should try harder!), so I offer FPGM help to
cover it/do the umbrella for the council, meetings services for free :).
This could actually lead to recognize FPGM as formal member within Fedora
governance. 

> If you are wondering why marketing is in here and think it's
> over-represented: I think we definitely want the marketing team to
> become more important.
> 
> Auxiliary members:
>       * Design
>       * Docs
>       * L10n
>       * FPC
>       * Spins
>       * Websites
>       * ...
> 
> Some of these are already represented as sub-projects of other permanent
> members, e.g. websites is already (kind of) represented by
> infrastructure, but it might be necessary get in touch with somebody
> directly to get shit done.
> 
> Summary: For the permanent members, I would like us to think of
> something similar to the release readiness meetings. All relevant
> stakeholders should have a representative.

With that coverage of folks, it can actually be used partially as some
kind of replacement for readiness meetings or one of council meetings
could be dedicated to release readiness - with more auxiliary members 
in.

> For the auxiliary members, ideally we would have a liaison to every
> single group out there and be able to contact them whenever we feel it
> is necessary. And of course they should already be able to contact the
> council at any given point in time.
> 
> Questions, comments, rants?

See above :). Thanks for your summary.

Jaroslav

> Regards,
> Christoph
> 
> 
> [1] https://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/presentations/The%20Fedora%
> 20Council.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> board-discuss mailing list
> board-discuss at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss