election calendar [RFC]

[Karsten Wade]

On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 19:39 +0100, Bart Couvreur wrote:

> One thing, I'm wondering about: do we really need 7 people aboard FDSCo?
> Looking at the attendees to meetings the last couple of months, we've
> done about almost everything with 4-5 max.

Starting from this discussion on IRC[1], I think we do still need enough
people to cover when others are not available.  Otherwise, sure, it
could all be done with a minimally sized leadership.

However, I don't think we can so easily change these details at this
point.  The reason we have a review of these details/policies *after*
the election is to be fair and equitable:

* The three seats up for (re)election would reduce get reduced to "one",
which is not encouraging for potential nominees.

* Electing three people now is for a twelve month term, but after the
elections the new FDSCo could vote to shorten that term to six months
and hold elections for a new, smaller body in May.

* Mainly, we said we would follow this pattern and switching this late
is not a good time to switch; wisely, the previous FDSCo created the
trigger to discuss changes to the policy for *after* this election, just
to avoid (the appearance of) election improprieties.

Thus, I think the entire policy is up for discussion after the election,
including how long all active seats are held, etc.

- Karsten

[1] Bob and Bart on IRC:

10:40 < couf> jee, john seems to be pretty busy, bursting into wiki-edit mode
10:41 < EvilBob> couf: RE: 7 seats in FDSCo, I think 7 are needed so we can 
                 have a quorum with only 4 members available
10:42 < EvilBob> couf: that was one of the ideas behind the number 7 is that 
                 not everyone is going to be available.
10:43 < couf> EvilBob: right, it just struck me atm of writing :-)
10:43 < EvilBob> couf: we could trim it back to 5 but then a quorum is only 3.
10:43 < couf> indeed
10:43 < EvilBob> IMO 3 is to easy to make
10:44 < couf> I don't know, it seems that the project is going fairly well, and 
              we're doing it with 5 right now
-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20071203/15d1d2c7/attachment.sig>