Discussion of Server Working Group governance

[Miloslav Trmač]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> 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.

Proposals in-line; in general, I prefer not worrying about this too
much / not inventing too much now, and getting to the real work
instead.  We can adjust the rules after a few months when we see what
is/isn't working.

> == Voting Members ==
>  * Number of voting members for the Working Group.
Let's assume to continue with 9.

>  * How long a term do the voting members serve?
FESCo-like, 2 groups of 1 year each, overlapping for 6 months.

Elections to happen within the "combined election cycle" together with
FESCo/Board etc. .  (I'm unsure about including the elections that are
planned soon after the PRD deliverable - it might be a good time to
see how the community feels about the PRD, OTOH by that time we'll
still not have enough idea about the actual implementation proces.)

The 2 groups can be seeded by voting all seats in the first election,
with the top 5 seats to be for 12 months, and the next 4 seats for 6
months.

>  * Should there be term limits or mandatory breaks?
Let's not worry about that now.  We haven't felt the need for them in
the other bodies so far.

>  * Should there be reserved chairs for specific constituencies (e.g.
> QA, Ambassadors, Release Engineering)?
Let's not worry about that now. (?)

>  * Who can vote?[2]
FPCA+1, with an unenforced request for only people participating in
the server product to vote?

>  * Recalls?
Let's not worry about that now.  We haven't felt the need for them in
the other bodies so far.

>  * How do we later amend the charter?[4]

> [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

Assuming this to be a rare situation, I'd prefer not making up too
complex rules for this, we should just avoid the risk of obvious
abuse.  The above, or "5 voting members + FESCo ACK" would work for
me.
    Mirek