[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Board term limits



Paul W. Frields wrote:
The problem at hand was the perceived dominance by full-time Fedora
people on the Board.  People who spend their entire $DAYJOB as well as
their spare time on Fedora are automatically very involved and visible.
That can translate directly to votes on the basis of name recognition,
which really disadvantages people who are very involved, but in a
somewhat more limited fashion because they don't have the luxury of
doing Fedora all day every day.  (Maybe a similar advantage would go to
someone unemployed, but let's not argue that for right now.) ;-)

As a secondary note, the people who do spend their entire $DAYJOB on
Fedora are extremely likely to be Red Hat folks.  In an average election
then, we generate the *perception* that Red Hat is still stacking the
Board.  The idea of term limits came up as a way to limit the effects of
$DAYJOB on this process to some extent, while not shutting people from
Red Hat out based on their $DAYJOB, either.

I think there's a big distinction between RHT employees paid to work on Fedora full time and RHT employees who aren't. Perhaps a better way to solve this problem would be to limit the number of concurrently serving people from a given business unit within RHT. And possibly move to an internal election rather than seemingly random appointments.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]