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

Governance



re: This part of Wednesday's meeting:
= = = = =
* We're just not sure the current elections scheme is serving us well.
Pushing discussion to the list for wider input.  How much does
governance matter to folks?
 ** In light of Docs role with contributors embedded in SIGs
 ** How subprojects govern themselves in the hands of subprojs?
= = = = =

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects 

According to the current policy, to be a "project" (meaning an official
subproject) there has to be some sort of governance in place, "possibly
including an election or selection scheme."  So we have some leeway to
do what we think needs to be done to empower Docs to get things done.
If elections are too often, too much, too early, or whatever the popular
opinion may be, I think we just need to decide on what the new scheme
will be.

Would it make sense, rather than to have a sort of "global Docs
committee" like FDSCo, instead just have people who agree to take up the
banner for particular interest areas, and we could still meet regularly
as we do now?  Those assignments could be somewhat formal in nature, and
noted on the wiki so community members know who's responsible for each
area.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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