Draft v2 Workstation WG Governance Charter

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Christoph Wickert
<cwickert at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 12.11.2013, 07:32 -0500 schrieb 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.)
>
> I'm still having problems with this. You have incorporated the
> discussion nicely with your changes, however the term "Workstation
> product" gives me headache. "The Workstation product" is GNOME and will
> continue to be GNOME in the foreseeable future. I do think this is the
> right choice and I don't want to start yet another desktop, but for the
> governance charter I would like a phrasing that does not 'exclude'
> non-GNOME contributors like me and Lukáš.

Well, that's one of the main intentions behind calling it the
Workstation Work Group.  We want to encourage participation from a
broad set of contributors.  Also, I don't think we've actually
officially decided on a base DE.  I expect, as you seem to, that we
would go with GNOME but we haven't actually talked about that elephant
in the room yet.

> How about something like
> "candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality
> contribution to one of Fedora's desktop environments" or "workstation
> technology".

This seems great to me.  I can make that change if there are no objections.

> Maybe this is a different topic, but the term "Workstation product"
> gives me some headache.

We can bring that up next.

josh