The "Membership" section of the governance charter draft

Miloslav Trmač mitr at volny.cz
Thu Oct 31 22:42:57 UTC 2013


Hello,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Máirín Duffy <duffy at redhat.com> wrote:
> - I would like to propose instead that we maintain a nine voting member
> roster, but require that at least five of the members be able to
> directly represent the server community. By this, I specifically would
> like to require any or all of the following requirements be met by a
> 'server community' representative (under which all of our current
> 'server community' reps and other members qualify as well):
>
>   - member has worked professionally as a system administrator for a
> deployment of at least 10 production servers
>   - member has been involved significantly as a contributor to an
> enterprise Linux distribution or enterprise management product for Linux
> servers.

I don't think specifically these requirements are reasonable/really
justifiable as written (what about 9 servers?  does someone working
exclusively on a specialized compiler optimization on a compiler
shipped in an enterprise Android/SUSE distribution qualify?), and more
generally the huge amount of effort that would be required to get this
kind of requirements "right" is in itself an indication that this
approach is too prescriptive: I'll gladly accept a less targeted
voting body if it will give us one more month to do actual work.

And, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, they are not really
enforceable anyway.

So, to give an alternative proposal: "Active participant in the server
WG" would be sufficiently targeted for me, simple enough (... and
equally unenforceable).
     Mirek


More information about the server mailing list