#6 New slate of Fedora Server Working Group members
Closed 3 years ago by pboy. Opened 3 years ago by mattdm.

From our Fedora Server Reboot meeting today (https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2020-12-16/serversig.2020-12-16-18.00.html), the following slate (by FAS id) is nominated to join the Fedora Server Working Group:

I think that's everyone. If I missed you inadvertently, please know it was an accident. The IRC log is kind of chaotic. (In retrospect, I should have asked for everyone to provide a line in a standard format. Oh well.) If you got missed, or weren't able to attend the meeting, just for the sake avoiding further chaos please file a separate ticket for official approval.

By the Fedora Server Governance charter, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter#Membership, this slate needs three +1 votes from existing members and no -1 votes within the next two weeks. I know that's over Christmas, but since I don't see -1 votes as likely given the enthusiasm of all above, I think that's okay. So assuming we can get the three +1s, this will become official on December 30th.


I would like to still be a member of the WG too, but sure, +1 to above.

From our Fedora Server Reboot meeting today (https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2020-12-16/serversig.2020-12-16-18.00.html), the following slate (by FAS id) is nominated to join the Fedora Server Working Group:

I'd like to on that list as well please :)

+1 to all above

And i would like to still be a member of the WG too.

@defolos Oops sorry I missed you.

Someone actually on the existing WG can override me, but just as a matter of procedure even where it's my fault I think it's easier for people I missed or who couldn't attend the meeting to file individual tickets here separately. That way, counting the +1s doesn't become a mess. Or alternately, collect names for a second slate.

Note that formally the +1s need to come from existing members, who are:

... which means that so far we have one +1.

I didn't realize I was a working member here. I give a +1

@mattdm Wait, what? Why am I not a member of the WG? I'm pretty sure I joined in 2016~2017-ish.

@mattdm Wait, what? Why am I not a member of the WG? I'm pretty sure I joined in 2016~2017-ish.

Maybe you did! I am only going by the list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server

Someone else should make a ticket for "document actual current membership" when this settles. :)

Sorry I didn't vote here. This was filed over the holidays and I never got back to it after...

I'm +1 to all the orig list... although this is now a bit muddled with all the various folks wanting to be added.

I'm going to say this was approved, since it has been opened for 2 months and has 3 +1's from current members listed on the wiki. I've added the people from mattdm's original list to the wiki list.

@nb, thanks for the initiative. However, we do have a formal problem (which we are already trying to solve sensibly): According to the Governance Charter (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter), the +1s must be made within 2 weeks. And Kevin has formally registered his +1 too late. I am not a formalist, but somehow ignoring the self-imposed rules is not really a satisfactory solution either.

So, how about we collect all the interested parties/names again, repost them and revote on that slate?

Well, there are 2 options:

(a) open a new slate with all applicants
(b) ask Fesco for an approved list

(a) would result in 23 members, (b) could not include current members who are no longer active and would then result in 19 members. After all the back and forth, (b) would also provide greater legitimacy.

The size of the group is also questionable. A larger number of participants opens up the potential for better results, but it also easily leads to unclear responsibilities and lack of practical results.

In any case, we should set a time limit for the membership in the WG, maybe about 2 years with automatic renewal if the member confirms his or her continued participation and contribution.

And we should clearly state the expectations towards members, such as regular participation and contributions to key work areas, e.g. development & maintenance, QA, documentation, marketing.

Addendum:
In the case of (b), we could also take the opportunity to restart our SIG. All interested parties would form the new SIG at the same time.

@pboy That's a good point. I had interpreted it as "There must not be any -1's in at least 2 weeks", but after reading it, I see that it reads as "The 3 +1's must be within 2 weeks"

@pboy
I think a lot of people applying think that a working group is similar to SIG membership. I made that mistake when I first tried to join when the Server Working Group was formed.

Being a member of a working group is basically a commitment for N hours a week to do whatever is needed for the group to get an edition out the door. It may be writing tests for QA, it may be writing documentation, it may be sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a consensus on what is getting done in this edition, and it may be coming in every morning and finding out why a server compose broke (versus others) and see which commit did it. It is called a 'working' group for that reason.

@smooge

+++1
that's exactly my concern!

And that effort and commitment is not only a question of willingness and ability, nor does it have anything to do with special appreciation, but is above all a question of the constraints of time budget and the objectively availability of time resources.

All that considered, it is probably to be preferred to focus more on the SIG. That' s the place where discussion and innovation take place. FESCo should agree to restart the SIG and gather all interested parties and activists there, as a replacement for the current long list. At the same time, the Working Group should be reduced to the 4 currently active members and supplemented according to concrete projects and explicit commitments. Documentation and organisation may be two areas where the Working Group could use some strengthening.

I would like to have myself replaced by @nb if possible when the Working Group is revalidated by FESCO. I do not currently have much volunteer time to put towards Server and am mostly carving it out of overcommits to make sure the Working Group doesn't die. I do not think I can keep it up long term.

I'm sorry you want / have to leave the WG. You are currently one of the reliable guarantors of the WG and actually hard to do without. Could you wait until everything is well sorted out?

I hope you will continue to participate in the SIG.

Metadata Update from @pboy:
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

3 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata