The Inquirier on F17

Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at
Mon Jun 4 10:19:34 UTC 2012

----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM, "J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson"
> <johannbg at> 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 

It was a topic during "Governance" discussion at FUDCon Tempe and we
still have not moved forward from that time. People played with number of
appointed seats but before we know how should our governance model
looks like (or even how it looks like now) it's not a primary goal.

Currently it works that FPL appoints one seat before elections and one
after elections - for me it makes sense to balance Board - to avoid
a specific group overtaken the Board (and it's not about RH vs community).

But I'm not against only one appointed seats for each term. But as I
already said - it's just math, the most important question is where
should Board stand == power given to elected/appointed members...

> 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. 

Yep, FPL announces who will be appointed and asks Board and I really 
trust our FPLs they would not push anyone against the will of the


> John
> --
> marketing mailing list
> marketing at

More information about the marketing mailing list