Discussion of Server Working Group governance

Simo Sorce simo at redhat.com
Mon Oct 28 12:58:03 UTC 2013


On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 08:55 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> The first goal of the Working Group process is to plan our governance
> process for future members of the Server Working Group. I think the
> place we should start is by gathering a list of requirements that a
> governance charter will need to keep in mind. I'll list my thoughts
> below, please raise your own concerns as well.
> 
> In no particular order (stream of consciousness):
> 
> == Voting Members ==
>  * Number of voting members for the Working Group.
>  * How long a term do the voting members serve?
>  * Should there be term limits or mandatory breaks?
>  * Should there be reserved chairs for specific constituencies (e.g.
> QA, Ambassadors, Release Engineering)?
>  * Voting method?[1]
>  * Who can vote?[2]
>  * Recalls?
> 
> == Charter ==
>  * How do we approve the initial charter?[3]
>  * How do we later amend the charter?[4]
> 
> 
> == My initial thoughts ==
> I am open to counter-arguments, naturally.
> 
> [1] For simplicity, I suspect we want to stick with range-voting as in
> the other elections. We already have the tools for this.

+1

> [2] I recommend we stick with FPCA+1 as a rule for voting.

I am not sure what FPCA+1 is, half + 1 ? If so +1

> [3] For the initial charter, I think if it's not unanimous, we need to
> keep talking.

+1

> [4] I think amendments should require "voting members - 1". It
> shouldn't be possible for a single dissenting vote to hold things up
> (they should get to have their say), but otherwise I think that a
> near-unanimous vote should be required to change the fundamental
> guiding document.

+1

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York



More information about the server mailing list