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

Re: Governance

Hash: SHA1

What positions are needed?  I could see a Chair and a Vice Chair (or
whatever you wanted to call them) that would ultimately be in charge of
the project.  They could serve one year terms that could be staggered
(one start in January and one start July).  Their responsibilities would
be to lead the meetings, approve draft documentation for release, and to
kick butt as necessary.

My opinion...


Paul W. Frields wrote:
| 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.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


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