Draft v2 Workstation WG Governance Charter

[Josh Boyer]

Hi All,

The charter is due this Friday, November 15.  We have two comments
from Jens on this draft, one for suggesting a voting timeframe of
within a week of an official proposal, the other for possibly using
trac for voting.  I'm fine with the timeframe, and I don't care either
way on trac or what I have in the draft below.

Please review and either approve or make suggested changes.

josh

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here's the second draft of the charter.  I think I captured most of
> the discussion to date, but there's always a chance I missed
> something.  Please read this over and provide any feedback you have.
> Please pay particular attention to the (NOTE:) items.
>
> Thanks.
>
> josh
>
> == Fedora Workstation WG Governance ==
>
> This document describes the governing structure for the Fedora
> Workstation Work Group.
>
> === Membership ===
>
> The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one
> member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the
> liaison to FESCo.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> (NOTE: I believe this is a decent encapsulation of the discussion
> we've had thus far.  I've omitted term limits for now, but I'm open to
> suggestions.  The FPCA+1 requirement seems reasonable to me as we want
> to make sure they're a Fedora contributor first and foremost.
> Suggestions/questions welcome.)
>
> === Current Members ===
>
> * Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison) (jwb)
> * Matthias Clasen (mclasen)
> * Kalev Lember (kalev)
> * Ryan Lerch (ryanlerch)
> * Jens Petersen (juhp)
> * Christian Schaller (cschalle)
> * Owen Taylor (otaylor)
> * Lukáš Tinkl (ltinkl)
> * Christoph Wickert (cwickert)
>
> === Making Decisions ===
>
> Because Fedora is a global project, members of the working group may
> be distributed across multiple timezones. It may be possible to have a
> real-time IRC meetings, but  in general we will conduct business on
> the mailing list.
>
> Many of our decisions can be made through "lazy consensus";. Under
> this model, an intended action is announced on the mailing list,
> discussed, and in the absence of a group of dissenting contributors
> within a few days, simply done.
>
> 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. Non-members may
> comment on the item and (of course) discuss on the mailing list, but
> are asked to refrain from  putting votes on official proposal threads.
>
> 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.
>
> (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.)
>
> === Changing these Rules ===
>
> This document will be approved by consensus of the initial Working
> Group members and approved by FESCo. After initial ratification, any
> substantive changes can be approved by majority vote and sent to FESCo
> for acceptance.