#1186 FESCo liason role in WGs
Closed None Opened 6 years ago by jwboyer.

= phenomenon =

Currently, every WG has a FESCo member or delegate as part of the initial voting set of the WG. This makes sense as we're just getting started, and those liaisons chose the voting members. However, it is unclear if such a role is required to be in the voting membership of the WGs in the future.

When creating the governance charter for the WGs, we need to be clear on whether FESCo representation is required in the voting set or not. If not, is there a need for FESCo representation in the WG in a non-voting capacity? E.g. does the governance need to account for this role in an official manner going forward?

Please discuss and let the WG coordinators know so they can properly create the governance model for the WGs.


I think it's important to always have one member act as a FESCo liaison, and I think this should be a voting role. This will help us keep together as a project.

However, I'm agnostic on whether this seat needs to be filled by FESCo or by the working group members or by some other means in the future.

As discussed in the conversation about the Fedora Board's future, it may be that we want to invert the current approach and have some FESCo seats (or seats in a future combined-board+fesco body) reserved for WG members.

From the 2013-10-30 FESCo meeting:

  • AGREED: require that the fesco liason on a WG is always a member of
    that WG's decision making body (+:8, 0:0, -:0 (pjones, 18:48:28)
  • AGREED: WGs can decide how the FESCo liason is selected, including
    the possibility of asking FESCo to select. (As FESCo is above the
    WGs, FESCo could ask WGs to re-choose.) (+:8, -:0, 0:0) (notting,
    19:03:03)

Closing this out.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata