As discussed at Flock in Prague and on the board-discuss mailing list (see [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-August/thread.html August] and [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-September/thread.html September] archives), there are several proposals on the table for reorganizing the board in order to enable more effective leadership.
These are summarized on the mailing list [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-August/012768.html here] and (a little more loosely) [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-September/012792.html here].
None of these are completely worked out, but at this point in order to move forward, we should choose one of these directions and work on filling in the details. I know that not all of these details are minutia; some are important to actually accepting a given proposal. So, please do vote but also highlight features which you feel are vital in the new arrangement (put those as * bullet points in your comment).
The three proposals are:
A. The Flock Proposal (as outlined [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-August/012768.html in this message]) B. The Two-Body Proposal (also outlined [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-August/012768.html in that message]) C. Flock Proposal with formalized (usually "lazy") consensus decision making instead of FPL as sole decider (as explained [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-September/012792.html here]
Please vote either +1, -1, or 0, for "support", "opposed", and "acceptable but not preferred" for each of these, followed by any essential components. Like this (note not my actual vote):
A: +1 B: -1 C: 0
Then, we'll move forward with the proposal which is approved with the most support, and fill in the details for member selection, decision making, continuity, and so on.
If any of the bullet points turn out to be particularly contentious or controversial, we can talk about them further, but I think from the conversation to date that no one has anything surprising so I'm not going to worry about that.
Non-board members: please continue to discuss on the mailing list and refrain from commenting in this ticket, just for cleanliness and simplicity -- let's keep the discussion in one place.
Board members: I said earlier that we should have a direction chosen by the second week in September, which turns out to be now. Please give your votes by Wednesday.
Thanks everyone!
My vote:
A: 0 B: +1 C: +1
A: 0 B: -1 C: +1
A: 0 B: -1 C: -1
A:-1 B:+1 C: 0
B: I think that two bodies may not be the ideal solution on the long run, but I see it as a very good step in the general direction that we want to achieve: productivity. Is good because is a small step and will give us something to try out without disrupting too much. It will be easier to balance elected and appointed people toward long term perspective and the task at hand. So the way of selecting who will fill a given position can be decided later. Two bodies means split the different resposabilities, but this also can be decided later.
C: I have the concern that this proposal need much elaboration on how people will be selected (to avoid words elected/appointed). FPL and the team will have all responsabilities. Having a good way to achieve the right mix of meritocracity and democracy will need to be resolvd before this option be pushed forward.
A: -1 B: -1 C: +1
Comments/recommendations: * Proposal A rests the project's high-level decisions solely upon the FPL's shoulders. This introduces a project-wide point of failure (in the short term) that is particularly unfair to the FPL, who quite likely has his or her own goals within Fedora and a life outside of Fedora. Whether based in reality or not, it also creates the appearance of a "good old boys" network. * Proposal B merely creates a new group to lead in place of the Board. It does nothing to encourage the other group, who still make decisions, to be active themselves. * Proposal C needs to explicitly mention that someone can say "-1" when he or she believes an unannounced change needs review. Rollbacks are often not straightforward when one is not working with code. * Proposals A and C need more elaboration about who the groups' members will be to ensure reasonable representation and prevent needless obstacles to progress.
A: +1 B: 0 C: +1
A: On the other hand, the council should hand over certain tasks to other bodies, in particular executive tasks and administration and everything we consider governance.
B: If we continue with the board, I'm afraid we will have a hard time finding candidates,
If we have a board and a council, we will run into problems defining the with responsibilities of each body.
C: Sounds '''very''' compelling, but also vague. We should remove red tape wherever and when ever possible, but in some situations we need to make a decision and that requires clear rules.
C: I think lazy consensus will work most of the times, but for a community of Fedora's size, 72 hours probably is not enough time to speak up. I'm afraid it will lead to a stronger dominance of people working on Fedora full-time (a.k.a. Red Hatters).
A vs. B: I '''strongly''' prefer a single committee. Seems so do most others, nevertheless proposal A is at -2 atm. At FLOCK it seemed to have a lot of support, so I wonder if it is phrased badly.
Last but not least a new and possibly crazy idea: Today the board is half elected and half appointed. How about a new body, that is half elected as today, but the other half is elected/appointed on a committee level? I think this would combine the advantage proposals the council (having all stakeholders in the group) with the board (democratic legitimization through election) and at the same time minimize the problems of lazy consensus (dominance of a few).
Reminder: We agreed in Monday's call to post our votes in this thread by today. If you haven't already voted, please do so soon.
A: -1 B: +1 C: +1
Proposal A I'm only against if it is a complete replacement body. It could be incorporated into proposal B as the leadership body there as described in A and I would be ok with that.
I expect cwickert is correct that the governance part of proposal B would wither over time with disinterest. Proposal C could be shaped in a way that would alleviate my major concerns with proposal A so at this point despite the vagueness and lack of detail in it I'll give it a +1 as something I'd be willing to pursue.
I think any other concerns I have have been adequately covered already.
Cool! That totals to: {{{ A: -2 (+1/-3/ 5) B: -2 (+3/-5/ 1) C: +6 (+7/-1/ 0) }}}
with a clear winner for the overall direction: a single body with a more active charter and real decision making power and many, many details to work out.
I'll start working on a draft for what that might look like and post it to the discuss list in the next couple of days.
Login to comment on this ticket.