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

Re: Governance

I agree!


As a Project Manger by choice (not design) I have always tried to have a minimal quorum to make steering decisions on what requests should actually become projects. More ideas exist than resources, and not all ideas match the goals of the Docs Project. My minimal quorum consists of a Chair and Vice Chair with a sponsor (person making the request) and the project lead (Implementer).


Chair and Vice Chair should lead the direction for all projects and sub project. Without clear direction, an over abundance of ideas could lead to a loss of direction or even fragmentation of the original scope the Docs Project was designed to serve.

The Sponsor and Project Leads should report status, and poll for resources to complete the projects. These last two positions should not be voted on in my opinion, only the Chair and Vice Chair. A one year term that is staggered for election purposes would mean only 2 elections a year.

A little more than 2 cents, but who’s counting

Mike “Ditt” Dittmeier

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Christensen"
To: "For participants of the Documentation Project"
Subject: Re: Governance
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:46:22 -0400

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


-- fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list redhat com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list

Mike Dittmeier
mike vegasitpros com

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