= Proposal topic = The board recently added a process for removing members of the board. I think it would be worthwhile for fesco to have a similar policy.
The board policy is: REMOVAL: In the event of repeated absence without contact, or other serious misconduct or negligence, a Board member may be subject to removal. Before any other process occurs, the Board member in question will be personally contacted by the FPL to try to resolve the situation. If this contact does not successfully resolve the situation, the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board. Any resulting open seat will be filled through an interim appointment by the FPL, following consultation with the Board. The term of the interim appointment will be the remainder of the original term for that seat.
Proposal for fesco: REMOVAL: In the event of repeated absence without contact, or other serious misconduct or negligence, a FESCO member may be subject to removal. Before any other process occurs, the FESCO member in question will be personally contacted by the Chair to try to resolve the situation. If this contact does not successfully resolve the situation, the FESCO member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of FESCO. Any resulting open seat will be filled through the nominee with the next most highest votes in the election. If no such nominee exists then an appointment can be made with agreement from 2/3rds the members of FESCO.
I would recommend changing:
"...contacted by the Chair to try to resolve the situation"
to:
"...contacted by the Fedora Board to try to resolve the situation"
Replying to [comment:1 jwboyer]:
I would recommend changing: "...contacted by the Chair to try to resolve the situation" to: "...contacted by the Fedora Board to try to resolve the situation"
Why? Does the Board interfere in the internal affairs of other committees? I actually seem to recall the board specifically not wanting that role in the event of confirming the chair of FAMsCO, for instance. Of course, if the member being subject to removal is the chair, then something else needs to happen.
Replying to [comment:2 jstanley]:
It's a suggestion. Take it or leave it. However, there is a very large difference between "approve a chair" and "forcibly remove an elected member of a committee".
This isn't about interfering with the affairs of other committees. My suggestion is simply to appoint what is hopefully a more impartial party to arbitrate if there is enough contention within the committee to cause it to eject a member. Due diligence into the issues would be highly advisable so as to not cause conspiracy theories about requiring a "hive mind" committee or somehow making FESCo a popularity contest.
The suggestion of the Board is simply because that is the only organization in Fedora that is higher than FESCo. If you don't like that suggestion, then perhaps you could propose some other recourse for allowing a non-FESCo party to review the actions and conditions that have gotten the committee to the point of ejection of a member. Placing that responsibility on the FESCo Chair as an official role is both unfair and impractical.
Of course it is absolutely acceptable for the Chair or any other member to directly address a member in private, for behaviour or any other reason. I'm not arguing against that at all. I'm simply stating that requiring a member of the committee trying to enact such a proposal to act as an official arbiter to the situation seems rather odd, whether that member is the Chair or not.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo/SuccessionPlanning
This proposal was approved.
Login to comment on this ticket.