The Inquirier on F17

Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at
Mon Jun 4 20:22:53 UTC 2012

First thing I'd like to say - I'm pretty sure this is not a right 
mailing list to discuss governance issues - there's Board Advisory
one. Sparsely used by community :(

----- Original Message -----
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM, "J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson"
> > And here are few I think is wrong with election process and is
> > needed to
> > ensure fairness through out the community
> >
> > 1.
> > The same election process should be used through out the whole
> > project so
> > famsco/fesco should follow the same process as do everyone else.
> I'm not sure what you mean here. The process is almost identical for
> FAmSCo and FESCo with minor details that differ like FAmSCo does not
> require members to be in the packager group. :)

I don't understand it neither :)
> I am interested in understanding what you mean though as I am also
> very interested in an election process that the community believes
> in.
> So please tell us in more detail where you think the problem lies now
> in this case.
> > 2.
> > Individual may not serve on more then one committee at a time.
> This one I have pretty strong sympathy for since in general I think
> participating in multiple governance bodies tends to have more
> negative consequences than positive. But there are always exceptions
> and off the top of my head today the only person falling into this
> category now is a volunteer community member elected to two of them.
> And as far as I can tell he is doing a fine job on both.

People having such important seat should be fully dedicated to this 
position. And for me it's not a problem to be involved in engineering
and for example ambassadors work, just you have to be sure to make
it. (and not only make it but do it).

> > 3.
> > 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.
> I have some sympathy for this too. Getting new ideas into the
> governance/steering discussion is a positive thing from my
> perspective. Each governance body can choose now to create such
> limits, has discussed them in the past, and seems to have always
> rejected them. I think the usual arguments against imposing limits
> are
> (1) voters can enforce any limits they choose by their actions voting
> and (2) there have been periods where even getting enough people to
> run to hold an election has been challenging without telling others
> they can't run.

The new blood is always welcomed and I'm trying to attract more people
for every elections! So again - strong limits are not something I'd 
like to see and it does not mean, we will get a new interested 
contributors. This is more task for our marketing us to sell people
why they should participate (one of my goals, I should implement
it on global level ;-).

> I'll point out that this is one place where the history of the FPL
> might help inform the governance bodies of the value of new ideas and
> fresh enthusiasm.
> > 4.
> > Nominees cant change their "Introduction" once the nomination
> > period has
> > ended.
> This is something we could just do. I'm not sure I see very much
> value
> in doing it though.
> > 5.
> > Nominees that seek re-elections should clearly state what work they
> > did when
> > serving their last election period.
> Did you ask them to do that on the questionnaire or at a townhall? We
> can ask the candidates whatever we want to ask them, someone just has
> to take a few minutes and ask the question.

Board members now have goals, again, we have to attract community to
be more involved and interested in Board member goal's achievements.
For now, we left scheduled reports and let Board member to show 
the important milestones of the goals when they are ready. Any idea?

But -> Advisory Board ;-)


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

More information about the marketing mailing list