On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:08 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 10:42 PM Josh Boyer <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Till Maas <opensou...@till.name> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:57:36PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM Randy Barlow >> > >> > > > Downside is that it would be possible (though I'd guess unlikely) for >> > > > all of FESCo to suddenly change to 9 different people and there'd be no >> > > > members who know the current state of things. We would also need to do >> > > > something a little awkward to get into this state since we currently >> > > > have staggered terms. >> > > >> > > The election structure was setup specifically to avoid this problem. >> > > The alternative solutions were all pretty poor. >> > >> > This seems to be a very theoretical problem because it would mean that >> > we have nine times the number of new candidates that we have now and >> > everyone is so unsatisfied with FESCo that only new candidates will be >> > elected. And if there is so deep dissatisfaction, a fresh start might >> > even be a good idea. Also there would still be other people around to >> > provide guidance or there is another problem. >> >> It was a solution to a practical problem when we came up with it. >> Fedora was young, core and extras had just merged. People were >> excited about guiding Fedora at a technical level. We needed the >> structure to ensure we didn't have massive swings in direction on >> technologies and sufficient transfer of knowledge. The overall number >> of contributors was smaller, but the interest level was greater. >> >> I'm not against reworking the election schedule or terms, but it's >> good to know why something was put in place before you change it. >> Dismissing it as theoretical does nothing but make me feel old, which >> is OK because I am. I'm not convinced a change in the election >> structure or term limits is really going to drum up interest in FESCo >> though. The problems we face there are more fundamental than that. >> >> josh > > > > Over the past five years or so, the membership in FESCo has rarely changed > except when an existing member voluntarily gives up their seat. The elections > rely heavily on name recognition and so being on FESCo is self-reinforcing. > This isn't necessarily a bad thing, however. Clearly it has been working for > Fedora, since the Project is thriving.
Hm. I mean no disrespect by this, but it could also mean that FESCo is somewhat irrelevant to Fedora's current trajectory. It's likely a culmination of turning a crank at this point, with small nudges from FESCo to make sure nothing gets in the gears. I know we do a lot of rubber stamping because process requires it. I'm not sure that's what I'd call thriving, either for FESCo itself or how our project works. I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle though. To be clear, I think Fedora produces an outstanding set of Editions that have continued to work very well. We should be proud of that. That's our "product" though, not our project. > I'd like to suggest a more radical approach then: what if we only hold > elections under two circumstances? > > 1) An existing member steps down and announces that a seat is opening. > > 2) A vote of no-confidence is raised for one or more individuals currently > serving. In this case, those individuals can also remain on the ballot to > retain their seat. The details of the no confidence clause would need to be > worked out to avoid constant jeopardy and too frequent elections, but I think > that could be feasible. I'd be OK with this, but no-confidence is really hard to nail down. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RD345JRWBT7D5P2XB2NX6DLYO44HQ4B5/
