The Inquirier on F17
inode0 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 1 18:06:28 UTC 2012
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me try to rephrase this so you better understand what I'm getting at...
> Why does Red Hat reserve four seats on the board for itself to appoint to
> whomever it chooses?
Red Hat used to reserve five and released one to the elected pool when
Paul was the FPL iirc.
I have in the fairly recent past asked for consideration of shifting
two additional appointed seats to the elected pool and/or considering
the appointment process to either be done by the Board or a
combination of the Board and the FPL. Generally the appointment
process has been done with the involvement of the Board anyway as I
understand it. I don't think very much would change either way in the
end. Very often two of the appointments have been candidates who
missed being elected by one spot.
But regardless of who makes the final appointment decision people will
like it when they like it and disapprove when they don't. Making
either of the changes above might move the blame assigned to the
community though which would be a benefit to Red Hat.
> What gives Red Hat the right to do so against the community?
I don't think it is "against the community." There are arguably good
reasons for appointed seats, one example being to keep some balance in
the Board's experience and skills that could be lacking if all seats
were elected. For those who agree a partially elected and partially
appointed Board is a good thing then it is just a question of how best
to arrange the details. I imagine in the beginning it was easiest to
get started by giving the appointments to the FPL and it has worked
well enough that only a minor change was made a few years ago.
More information about the marketing