Discussion of Server Working Group governance

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Oct 28 13:07:18 UTC 2013

Hash: SHA1

On Mon 28 Oct 2013 08:58:03 AM EDT, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 08:55 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> 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

FPCA+1 means "Must be a member of at least one FAS group besides
"fpca" (which means you signed the Fedora Project Contributor
Agreement). It's a balance between allowing anyone to vote vs.
contributors (which includes QA, ambassadors, doc writers etc.).

>> [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.

I should clarify that this stance is contingent upon a fixed voting
membership size. If we decided on a charter that says "Anyone who
shows up at a meeting can vote", then this won't work.

> +1
> Simo.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the server mailing list