Succession planning change proposal

[inode0]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have two proosals to make for our succession planning documents[1]:

I'm not sure if you are looking for public feedback but I think I've
overcome my shyness now and will give you some anyway, As always, take
it as the opinion of one community member who has fairly fresh eyes
and who doesn't really know what he is talking about.

> First, I'm happy to see that we have enough nominations for the Board and
> FESCo elections to require ballots and voting.  However, if that
> failed to occur in some future election cycle, we'd need to have the
> situation covered.
>
> The following proposal adds that coverage:
>
> '''
> INSUFFICIENT NOMINATIONS:  If there are fewer nominees for elected
> Board seats than required to fill all seats, then the FPL will appoint
> individuals to fill any empty seats for a full term.  At the expiry of
> the term, the seats in question revert to elected seats.
> '''

I don't have any problem with this simple solution. I also don't have
any problem with the FESCo solution which has as its first step a one
week delay to kick the community in the pants and give it a second
chance to step up to its responsibility before changing gears.

> Second, I think we also need to fix a couple areas in the text that
> refer to appointed seats as "Red Hat" seats which is a misnomer.
> Appointed seats are filled by the FPL, and appointees need not be Red
> Hat employees.

Are you speaking here of the APPOINTED SEATS section? I still see
perhaps the old verbiage as it says "The people in these seats are
appointed by Red Hat ..."

Given the fact that the community freely elects Red Hat employees and
that the FPL freely appoints community members who are not Red Hat
employees I think it is past time to de-emphasize the distinction.

In the Composition section it says "All seats are occupied by Fedora
community members." This is correct and this is the language I prefer.
So could we also say that in the blue box at the top of the page
rather than "The Fedora Project Board is made up of a mix of Red Hat
employees and Fedora community contributors?"

For the same reasons you give for not liking "Red Hat seats" I object
slightly to the use of "community seats" in the SCHEDULE section.

In the ORDER OF OPERATIONS section it says "We hold back the final
appointment so that we can look ..." which suggests it isn't the FPL
making the decision since that person isn't a "we." Or reword this to
make clear who this "we" refers to exactly.

John