Board reorganization proposal

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Haïkel <hguemar at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 2014-09-26 21:48 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org>:
>>
>> I think this is where this breaks down.  If the Council and FPL is
>> going to make strategic changes that impact the entire community then
>> they cannot decide those things without a lot of discussion.  Doing
>> that in a limited attendance setting like Flock doesn't seem
>> appropriate, even if they were presented beforehand.
>>
>> Let's not repeat past mistakes.  Decisions are not made at Flock/FUDCon.
>>
>
> we agree on that part, Flock is the place to discuss things, not deciding them.
>
>> Except that isn't what happens at Flock.  Ideas are generated or
>> discussed at Flock, and then they are presented to the community for
>> discussion and refinement.  Take this entire Board rework proposal for
>> example.  We're still working through it almost 2 months later and
>> unless magic happens it will probably be another month before we
>> actually officially change things.  (Frankly, I'm hoping for magic).
>>
>> So if you align things with Flock, you're still looking at 15 months
>> minimum before we reach consensus.  18 months for goal seats is not
>> unreasonable.
>>
>
> Well, you're right scheduling things in a distributed community is hard.
> Then, do we all agree that agree that goal definition should happen
> after discussions at flock ?

I'd agree that Flock is a valuable piece of the discussion to be sure.

> What I fear with a totally disconnected schedule, is that goals are
> discussed in even smaller circles than Flock.
> For the record, according fedmsg, we had 1.4k active contributors
> (using a liberal definition of active), and Flock gathers 250 people
> so approximatively 1/5 of active contributors are there.
> There isn't a best place for these kind of discussions for us.

I don't think forcing seat terms to be aligned with a conference is
going to benefit the goals being driven by those seats.  Some of them
may be multi-year goals.  I do think evaluating the goals at a
conference is a great idea, but that is orthogonal to how long we
think the goal is going to take and how long a seat is present for it.

> I'm sorry that it may sounds like nitpicking -overall, I think the
> proposal is *good*- but as soon as it will be submitted to public
> criticism, they'll be harsher than I am.

I'm confused.  How much more public do you expect this to be?  It's
already on the public list where we discuss board things.

josh