Draft v2 Workstation WG Governance Charter

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Here's the second draft of the charter.
>
> Thanks, Josh!  Overall it looks pretty good to me -
> I have put some comments below.
>
>> The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for
>> the Work  Group.  The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG
>> decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis.
>> They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the
>> WG.  The liaison is not required to be a  FESCo member, but should be
>> able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings.
>
> good
>
>> Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become
>> available.  In the event that a current member relinquishes their
>> seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and
>> approving by majority consensus.  Eligible candidates must be in the
>> FPCA+1 group.  The Work Group is highly  encouraged to seek out
>> candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality
>> contribution to the Workstation product.
>
> Basically looks okay to me.
>
> What does the "+1" mean here though?  Is "FPCA Group" sufficient?
> However some Red Hatters are in the Red Hat Employee CLA group instead.

FPCA and Red Hat Employee CLA group are synonymous here.  The +1 means
"in one additional group", whether it be packager or docs or releng or
QA or whatever.  Just more than "signed the FPCA or equivalent".

>> For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is
>> long-term  impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we
>> will put forth a formal  proposal on the mailing list with a
>> "[Proposal for Vote] header in the email Subject:  field.  Working
>> group members can vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain;
>> five +1 votes are necessary for a measure to pass.
>
> Should a timeframe for voting be mentioned?  Within one week?

That isn't a bad idea.

>> In the event that a live meeting is held in IRC to discuss an issue,
>> proposals will be done in much the same way.  A member will put forth
>> an official proposal by prefixing a summary of such with "Proposal:"
>> and WG members will vote as above.  Results will be recorded and
>> posted in any meeting minutes.
>
> Sounds reasonable
>
>> (NOTE: I chose option #2 from the previous draft for now.  If you'd
>> like to see something different, please speak up.  I don't believe
>> anyone commented on this section specifically.)
>
> Not sure which would be more effective and practical.
> If we are not going to have a WG mailing-list

By WG mailing-list do you mean a private list?  We've learned over the
years that private lists for committee members tend to not work out
well at all.  At the moment the desktop list is the mailing list for
the WG.  Or if you just mean a separate public WG list... I guess I'd
rather do trac than that :).

> then perhaps a trac instance would be good idea
> and help to separate WG business from general desktop discussion?

I'm fine with trac if that's what people want to do, sure.  It would
think it would be a public instance though, as FESCo's is.

> Do we have a wiki space yet?

We didn't, but we do now.  I just created this page for us to work with:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation

It's a wiki, so that means it's always in draft form and you can
change it if there's something you don't like.  It modelled it after
the Server and Cloud pages, but we don't have a pretty graphic yet.
Maybe we can convince Ryan to create one for us.

josh