Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 15:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ray Strode halfl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The other positions will be filled by general election every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to each successive runner up until the seat is filled. I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes. (the whole fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy thing). Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud working group, or vice-versa. Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction of the work. If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't think that will happen. Fair. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike the idea of doing full blown elections. They seem overkill and cumbersome when it comes to coordinating, etc. I strongly support this view - the end result of having too many elections is that only a tiny fraction of people have the attention to understand what is going on and vote. Repeating myself from the server list: I don't think long serving terms, and especially indefinite serving terms, are healthy: there should be an easy way for the community to self-correct without requiring extraordinary effort like finding a thick-skinned opposition leader to set up a recall election or the like. AFAICT unlike (Czech and US at least) national governments, the Fedora elections have always had very low overhead and basically no campaign / pre-election posturing seasons disruptive to the project; there hasn't been much election-related burden to speak of. It also seems problematical to have a elected working group that falls under the supervision of FESCO which is also elected. What if FESCO and the group disagree? This can just as well happen with a non-elected group. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 15:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ray Strode halfl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The other positions will be filled by general election every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to each successive runner up until the seat is filled. I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes. (the whole fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy thing). Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud working group, or vice-versa. Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction of the work. If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't think that will happen. Fair. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike the idea of doing full blown elections. They seem overkill and cumbersome when it comes to coordinating, etc. I strongly support this view - the end result of having too many elections is that only a tiny fraction of people have the attention to understand what is going on and vote. Repeating myself from the server list: I don't think long serving terms, and especially indefinite serving terms, are healthy: there should be an easy way for the community to self-correct without requiring extraordinary effort like finding a thick-skinned opposition leader to set up a recall election or the like. Isn't that something that's addressed by FESCo oversight here? AFAICT unlike (Czech and US at least) national governments, the Fedora elections have always had very low overhead and basically no campaign / pre-election posturing seasons disruptive to the project; there hasn't been much election-related burden to speak of. It's not necessarily about burden, though I think there is some burden here. It's mostly about the voting body either having no idea who to pick because they aren't participating in this area, or being entirely indifferent and not voting for the same reasons. Coordinating a full election for the WG seems overkill. It also seems problematical to have a elected working group that falls under the supervision of FESCO which is also elected. What if FESCO and the group disagree? This can just as well happen with a non-elected group. Yes. I don't think the WG can change this itself anyway. The WGs are under the supervision (used very loosely here) of FESCo. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 15:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ray Strode halfl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The other positions will be filled by general election every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to each successive runner up until the seat is filled. I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes. (the whole fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy thing). Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud working group, or vice-versa. Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction of the work. If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't think that will happen. Fair. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike the idea of doing full blown elections. They seem overkill and cumbersome when it comes to coordinating, etc. I strongly support this view - the end result of having too many elections is that only a tiny fraction of people have the attention to understand what is going on and vote. It also seems problematical to have a elected working group that falls under the supervision of FESCO which is also elected. What if FESCO and the group disagree? In your opinion, should we have term limits imposed to ensure we have fresh members coming into the WG? As I said in another email, I think we should shoot for some continuity while also encouraging new members to step up. From my experience I doubt this will be necessary - there is a strong natural turnover of any such group based on people eventually getting bored or having their attention drawn elsewhere. - Owen -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
Hi All, Below is a draft governance charter for the Workstation WG. I have taken much of this from the Cloud WG draft charter (found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_WG) to have some commonality between groups. I left some of the sections from that off for now, as I think that is their main landing page and we can fill in those sections with our relevant details as we go. Please read it over and provide any feedback or ask any questions you may have. Thanks! josh == Fedora Workstation WG Governance == This document describes the governing structure for the Fedora Workstation Work Group. === Membership === The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the liaison to FESCo. Members of the Working Group serve two year terms. At the end of the two year period, FESCo will either renew the FESCo liaison or appoint a new one. The other positions will be filled by general election every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to each successive runner up until the seat is filled. If there are no candidates available or remaining from the previous election, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and approving by majority consensus. NOTE: Clearly all of the above is open for discussion. I've modelled it after how FESCo current does their membership to a large degree. If we want something else, please follow up with alternative suggestions. === Current Members === * Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison) * Matthias Clasen * Kalev Lember * Ryan Lerch * Jens Petersen * Christian Schaller * Owen Taylor * Lukáš Tinkl * Christoph Wickert === Making Decisions === Because Fedora is a global project, members of the working group may be distributed across multiple timezones. It may be possible to have a real-time IRC meetings, but in general we will conduct business on the mailing list. Many of our decisions can be made through lazy consensus;. Under this model, an intended action is announced on the mailing list, discussed, and if there is no controversy or dissenting views with a few days, simply done. For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we will [1]... Working group members can vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain; five +1 votes are necessary for a measure to pass. Non-members may comment on the item and (of course) discuss on the mailing list, but are asked to refrain from putting votes. [1] NOTE: for the workstation WG, we have the following option for dispute resolution: 1) Use a trac ticketing system as the cloud WG is doing 2) Come up with an official proposal voting system on the mailing list (specific Subject: [Proposal for Vote] ... or something). 3) Schedule an IRC meeting and do the vote live. I'm fine with any of these, though I will point out that live meetings across all of our relevant timezones are difficult. If we choose to have a trac ticketing system (which can be used for votes and for people to report issues), I can get that created. === Changing these Rules === This document will be approved by consensus of the initial Working Group members and approved by FESCo. After initial ratification, any substantive changes can be approved by majority vote and sent to FESCo for acceptance. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:01:52AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the liaison to FESCo. Is the FESCo appointed member one of the nine voting members? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:01:52AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the liaison to FESCo. Is the FESCo appointed member one of the nine voting members? For the initial voting set, yes. Going forward, I've asked FESCo to clarify that with this ticket to be discussed at today's FESCo meeting: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1186 When I asked in IRC, I got different replies from different FESCo members so they need to clear it up. For now, I'm assuming yes the liaison will always be a voting member. If that changes, I will change the draft to reflect that it need not be that way (and probably flesh out what the role does then). josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
Giving the FESCO rep a two year term seems to be a potential problem as they wouldn't be guaranteed to be in FESCO for two years and most of the time you'd probably want the rep to be a member of FESCO. Maybe the FESCO rep should just serve at the pleasure of FESCO? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: Giving the FESCO rep a two year term seems to be a potential problem as they wouldn't be guaranteed to be in FESCO for two years and most of the time you'd probably want the rep to be a member of FESCO. Maybe the FESCO rep should just serve at the pleasure of FESCO? I opened a ticket[1] for clarifying exactly what FESCo intended with the liaison role. They just decided that: 1) The FESCo liaison is always a member of the WG's decision making body 2) WGs can decide how the FESCo liaison is selected, including the possibility of asking FESCo to select. (As FESCo is above the WGs, FESCo could ask WGs to re-choose.) So the role isn't a member of FESCo on the WG. It's a member of the WG that acts as the liaison to FESCo. I'll clarify this in the next draft I send out. josh [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1186 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
Hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The other positions will be filled by general election every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to each successive runner up until the seat is filled. I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes. (the whole fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy thing). Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud working group, or vice-versa. Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction of the work. If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't think that will happen. --Ray -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ray Strode halfl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The other positions will be filled by general election every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to each successive runner up until the seat is filled. I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes. (the whole fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy thing). Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud working group, or vice-versa. Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction of the work. If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't think that will happen. Fair. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike the idea of doing full blown elections. They seem overkill and cumbersome when it comes to coordinating, etc. In your opinion, should we have term limits imposed to ensure we have fresh members coming into the WG? As I said in another email, I think we should shoot for some continuity while also encouraging new members to step up. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Workstation WG Governance Charter
Hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: In your opinion, should we have term limits imposed to ensure we have fresh members coming into the WG? As I said in another email, I think we should shoot for some continuity while also encouraging new members to step up. Not sure. I mean, as the saying goes if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Making membership autorotate kind of contradicts that little bit of wisdom. I think when people get tired or ineffectual, they'll say so, and relinquish their seats. People know when they're burned out, or when they're not helping for the most part. And I think the people on current working group have good intentions, and are willing to objectively put the project first. --Ray -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
