The Inquirier on F17
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
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
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