FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

» Linux Archive
Home
New Posts
Search
FAQ


Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-22-2008, 01:52 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Board term limits

During the discussion following the Board election, the subject of term
limits was raised. Generally those who commented on term limits thought
they were a good idea, including several Board members. I've written up
a proposal to amend the Board's succession plan with term limits, in the
hopes that these limits would encourage continual but gentle change in
the Board's elected membership over time.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Proposal_for_Board_Term_Limits

Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be a
public IRC meeting.

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-22-2008, 04:20 PM
Max Spevack
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:

Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be
a public IRC meeting.


The only question I have is to what extent (if any) will these rules be
put into place retroactively for current Board members?


Also for completeness, I would note on that page that the Fedora Project
Leader role is not term-limited.


--Max

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-22-2008, 04:25 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:

Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be
a public IRC meeting.


Is there a compelling reason to make the non-eligible period a full
term? It increases the record keeping needed to tell when someone is
eligible vs " the Board member becomes ineligible to run in the next
election. Their eligibility is restored for the election following that."


-Toshio

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-22-2008, 04:39 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 17:20 +0200, Max Spevack wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> > Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
> > proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
> > discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be
> > a public IRC meeting.
>
> The only question I have is to what extent (if any) will these rules be
> put into place retroactively for current Board members?

Good point. I'll add to the proposal that it take effect retroactively
starting with the release of Fedora 11, but I'm happy to entertain
arguments for something different.

> Also for completeness, I would note on that page that the Fedora Project
> Leader role is not term-limited.

Sure, even though the policy is limited to elected members.

You brought up another important point I want to add. I suppose Red Hat
could appoint someone who's been elected to two terms. Those
appointments go through the FPL, who should be mindful of the need for
balance on the Board. But we might want to limit the ability of someone
to serve a long appointed period and then go back to being elected a
bunch of times, just because everyone knows him or her, possibly
shutting out other good candidates.

I also want to be sensitive, though, to the position of someone like
Bill Nottingham, who's a tremendous asset to the Board since he's got a
huge amount of institutional knowledge, understanding of the workings of
the Fedora/RHEL relationship, and so forth. (I joke about Matt being a
member for life, but it's really Bill... and I hope the community
understands what an asset he is for all of us, whether we're in Red Hat
or not.)

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-22-2008, 04:43 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 08:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >
> >> Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
> >> proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
> >> discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be
> >> a public IRC meeting.
>
> Is there a compelling reason to make the non-eligible period a full
> term? It increases the record keeping needed to tell when someone is
> eligible vs " the Board member becomes ineligible to run in the next
> election. Their eligibility is restored for the election following that."

Compelling, no. Rational, I think so -- the extra lag time leaves more
time for other people to be elected since there are two or three seats
turning over at each release. I should note that this policy somewhat
codifies the suggestion of a couple other Board members, so I'm not
wedded to it as is. If the community thinks a one-release "cooling off
period" is appropriate, I'm fine with that.

The overall objective is to make sure that interested, qualified
community members who can't spend the majority of their time working on
Fedora, can still be competitive in our elections.

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-22-2008, 04:55 PM
"Luis Villa"
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> During the discussion following the Board election, the subject of term
> limits was raised. Generally those who commented on term limits thought
> they were a good idea, including several Board members. I've written up
> a proposal to amend the Board's succession plan with term limits, in the
> hopes that these limits would encourage continual but gentle change in
> the Board's elected membership over time.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Proposal_for_Board_Term_Limits
>
> Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
> proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
> discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be a
> public IRC meeting.

This may well reflect my position as an entrenched incumbent but a
little more explanation of what problem this solves would be good.
Incumbents may have a lot of valuable institutional memory, so making
them step away on a schedule might not be ideal. If you're concerned
about people overstaying their welcome and getting new blood on board,
it might be better to focus on how to get new blood involved and
increase the new blood's profile, and how to measure involvement of
incumbents (possibly privately) so that they get the message that they
are fading and ought to formalize that by fading out completely.

You mention Notting's wisdom in this sense, which reminds me that
getting rid of institutional knowledge is particularly problematic
given the elected/appointed split- if this actually applies only to
elected members, you're automatically putting the elected members at
an institutional memory disadvantage relative to the appointed
members.

FWIW-
Luis

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-22-2008, 05:24 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 08:55 -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> > During the discussion following the Board election, the subject of term
> > limits was raised. Generally those who commented on term limits thought
> > they were a good idea, including several Board members. I've written up
> > a proposal to amend the Board's succession plan with term limits, in the
> > hopes that these limits would encourage continual but gentle change in
> > the Board's elected membership over time.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Proposal_for_Board_Term_Limits
> >
> > Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
> > proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
> > discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be a
> > public IRC meeting.
>
> This may well reflect my position as an entrenched incumbent but a
> little more explanation of what problem this solves would be good.
> Incumbents may have a lot of valuable institutional memory, so making
> them step away on a schedule might not be ideal. If you're concerned
> about people overstaying their welcome and getting new blood on board,
> it might be better to focus on how to get new blood involved and
> increase the new blood's profile, and how to measure involvement of
> incumbents (possibly privately) so that they get the message that they
> are fading and ought to formalize that by fading out completely.
>
> You mention Notting's wisdom in this sense, which reminds me that
> getting rid of institutional knowledge is particularly problematic
> given the elected/appointed split- if this actually applies only to
> elected members, you're automatically putting the elected members at
> an institutional memory disadvantage relative to the appointed
> members.

The problem at hand was the perceived dominance by full-time Fedora
people on the Board. People who spend their entire $DAYJOB as well as
their spare time on Fedora are automatically very involved and visible.
That can translate directly to votes on the basis of name recognition,
which really disadvantages people who are very involved, but in a
somewhat more limited fashion because they don't have the luxury of
doing Fedora all day every day. (Maybe a similar advantage would go to
someone unemployed, but let's not argue that for right now.) ;-)

As a secondary note, the people who do spend their entire $DAYJOB on
Fedora are extremely likely to be Red Hat folks. In an average election
then, we generate the *perception* that Red Hat is still stacking the
Board. The idea of term limits came up as a way to limit the effects of
$DAYJOB on this process to some extent, while not shutting people from
Red Hat out based on their $DAYJOB, either.

I think the appointed seats do provide a sort of safe harbor for
institutional knowledge in a way that a fully elected Board might not.
Having said that, I like your thinking about making sure that incumbents
are involved. I've been very much a proponent of getting people on the
Board to pick up action items and push them to completion. Again, that
should be independent of $DAYJOB -- people who are volunteer Board
members are equally expected to carry some of this load by dint of their
elected position.

I'm not sure how to measure that directly other than through tracking of
our agenda, maintaining a clear list of action items and the accountable
parties for them, and setting deadlines for their completion. Those
lists are provided to the community through this mailing list and
elsewhere, so any contributor should feel free to hold members' feet to
the fire as needed. I do believe that people who don't have the time or
energy to see self-assignments through will generally gravitate away
from the re-election process.

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-23-2008, 04:23 AM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:

> During the discussion following the Board election, the subject of term
> limits was raised. Generally those who commented on term limits thought
> they were a good idea, including several Board members. I've written up
> a proposal to amend the Board's succession plan with term limits, in the
> hopes that these limits would encourage continual but gentle change in
> the Board's elected membership over time.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Proposal_for_Board_Term_Limits
>
> Comments appreciated either here or in the discussion page for the
> proposal on the wiki. I'll bring this before the Board for final
> discussion and a vote at our August 5th session, which will likely be a
> public IRC meeting.
>

I'm going out on a limb to say I'm generally against this as it seems to
only hurt our most popular board members. There's valid arguments for
term limits but to me its more important to keep good people on. I just
think we might be getting ahead of ourselves.

-Mike

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-23-2008, 05:24 AM
Ian Weller
 
Default Board term limits

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:


I'm going out on a limb to say I'm generally against this as it seems to
only hurt our most popular board members. There's valid arguments for
term limits but to me its more important to keep good people on. I just
think we might be getting ahead of ourselves.


I have to agree with Mike. If people want to continue revoting certain
people to the board, let them. If board members don't want to be on the
board anymore, they don't have to run again.

--
Ian Weller <ianweller@gmail.com> http://ianweller.org
GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36
"Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet."
~ Douglas Adams

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 07-23-2008, 06:02 AM
Thorsten Leemhuis
 
Default Board term limits

On 23.07.2008 05:23, Mike McGrath wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:



[...] There's valid arguments for
term limits but to me its more important to keep good people on.


Then make Boards, Committees and other political and organizational
groups in Fedora less important (¹); then all people (new one or old
contributors that might be good or less good (but good ones of course
included)) can just do (good) work where they want without fighting to
much with bureaucracy.


CU
knurd

(who doesn't contribute to Fedora much anymore because he got annoyed
dealing with all the different committees Fedora has)


(¹) please note the words "less"; we of course need some to coordinate
things;


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:17 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org