[fab] Succession Planning

[Rahul]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 17:30 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>> Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
>>> On Saturday 22 July 2006 09:11, Rahul <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>>>>> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group
>>>>>> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has
>>>>>> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are
>>>>>> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as
>>>>>> a requirement might be abused.
>>>>> How do we define being "part of" a group?  Number of CVS commits?
>>>>> Number of emails posted to a list?  Time on IRC?  If you can provide an
>>>>> objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it.
>>>> Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system.
>>>>
>>> There is no reliable way to say who is active and who is not.  It is trivial 
>>> to gain membership in most of the groups in the Account System.  Unless 
>>> someone can think of a superior way to measure active contributors, I think 
>>> the CLA requirement is the best we can do.
>> I do continue to think we can do better. Here is a possible criteria 
>> set. We might have to fine tune it better.
>>
>> * Signed the CLA
>> * CVS commits to any of the Fedora Projects
>> * Triaged or reported X number of bugs in Fedora.
>> * Participated or organized atleast one event or contributed to 
>> Free/Sponsored media as a Fedora Ambassador
>> * Member of any of the governing bodies such as committees and board
>> * Produced any Fedora specific content that is included in the 
>> distribution - Documentation, Artwork etc.
>> * People who contribute to infrastructure and other management tasks.
>>
>> Anything that I have missed?
> 
> CLA'ers that participate in ways we can't capture:  IRC, FedoraForum,
> real-life boosterism...  

If we are going to include all these people, we might as well as skip 
the CLA requirement and let everyone vote.


Also Wiki wasn't on this list.

I consider it part of our content and infrastructure.

I assume people
> working on i18n.r.c were captured in your item #6.

Yes and #2.


   You can see how this
> makes it more difficult to draw a line.  See my other comment in a
> related election thread this morning; our voting rights barrier should
> be as low as possible, else it sends a signal we have very little faith
> in the majority of our community.  

Not really. What is the CLA process achieve us here if everyone call 
sign a CLA and getting voting rights?

We just need to make sure that every contributor and not just the 
developers (aka Debian) gets voting rights and that shouldnt mean that 
everyone who posts in mailing lists and forums should be

> 
> I trust people to do what's best for the project in the long run, since
> the community and the project are pretty much synonymous.  It seems
> highly unlikely that there will be a coordinated mass insurrection by
> non-active people who've done a CLA. ;-)

No but it does have the potential to affect the nature of the election 
process quite drastically.

Rahul