The Inquirier on F17

"J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson" johannbg at
Mon Jun 4 17:53:17 UTC 2012

On 06/04/2012 02:51 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> This is a good explanation.  I'd also reiterate that "against the
> community" is not supported by the fact that (1), and (2) the FPL
> continues to appoint quite a few non-Red Hat employees, over the
> Board's history.

Well the FPL is not elected by the community but is hired by Red Hat 
through some internal process they have that we ( the community ) know 
nothing about and Red Hat has a track record of inventing position 
within the community then more often then not hire people outside the 
community to fill those positions. ( Even thou the company has been 
getting better at rephrasing these job positions and choosing people 
within the community rather than outside in more recent times).

Arguably an better approach to choose an FPL is for the community to 
nominate individuals which then would be subjected to whatever process 
Red Hat uses internally to filter out and eventually get on it's payroll.

At least to me that's the only compromising solution that I can see 
working between both parties involved without one ruling over the other.

With regards to "the Fedora community has chosen to elect quite a few 
Red Hat employees" which I can certainly agree to since I my self have 
voted Red Hat employees over community candidates since I base my voting 
more on the individual work and technical knowledge rather than on some 
popularity contest.

But I still think that this is one thing that is wrong with our election 
process as in I feel that corporate entity's or individual from there in 
may not be allowed to hold majority of seats neither on the board nor in 
any of the committees within the community to prevent that corporates 
interest influence either directly or indirectly the projects direction 
and resources and that view of mine is not limited to Red Hat but to all 
sponsor, sponsoring the project ( if and then when Red Hat *decides* 
some other corporate can sponsor the project).

And here are few I think is wrong with election process and is needed to 
ensure fairness through out the community

The same election process should be used through out the whole project 
so famsco/fesco should follow the same process as do everyone else.

Individual may not serve on more then one committee at a time.

There needs to be a limit on how many release cycles or "terms" 
individuals may serve on the board/committees to ensure rotation and 
enough "fresh" ideas/approaches to any given task at hand.

Nominees cant change their "Introduction" once the nomination period has 

Nominees that seek re-elections should clearly state what work they did 
when serving their last election period.


More information about the marketing mailing list