FESCo future

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Paul W. Frields schrieb:
> On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 15:57 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> [...snip...]
>>  * two seats are special for a representative from the Community
>> Committee and a representative from Red Hat (see below for backgrounds
>> of these groups); both have veto rights, too; this positions are not
>> bound to special persons; it would be good if always the same persons
>> from the committee's shows up, but if they are not able to they can send
>> someone else from the committee as stand-in.
>>
>>  * all the other seats are elected by the community once a year after a
>> Fedora release
>>
>>  * at least 50% of the seats need to be filled by community members.
> 
> I think these requirements, if examined closely, have a couple problems:
> 
> 1/  We need to get away from substituting "community members" for
> "non-Red Hat employees."  Red Hatters are community members too, and the
> unspoken implication is that there is a big wall there.  The very fact
> that we're combining Core and Extras shows how much this factionism has
> dwindled over the past three years.

Well, I agree with that in general. But I suspect if we don't have a "at
leat xx% need to be non-redhatters" rule a lot of people will say "this
is just another round in the never ending Red Hat game where they say to
get the community involved without giving them rights". I'd like to
avoid that. Any better idea?

> 2/  If the seats are elected, how and why do you propose the results be
> tilted away from Red Hat employees -- for instance, if the majority of
> the elected seats happened to go to Red Hat employees?

Then they don't get more seats then 50%. Similar to what gnome does for
its board. If more than X members (X=three iirc -- or are it only two
these days?) from one company get elected for the Board than only those
X elected people get on the board.

> [...]
>>  * the chair gets elected on the first meeting after a election
>>
>>  * If there is deadlock in a voting the decision is either deferred and
>> brought back up in the next meeting or it is presented to the FPB for
>> further discussion/guidance.
> Is there a reason you went for an even number of seats?  With an odd
> number, naturally the majority of seats have to be held either by Red
> Hat employees or not.

And that's what I wanted to avoid.

>  But the veto rights assigned to special seats and
> the chair should offset any worries of the minority group.

Hmmm. I still prefer a even number of seats to void problems from the
start -- nobody should be forced to use the veto rights to often.

CU
thl