Discussion regarding Community Working Group and/or Ombudsman
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 14:30, Jared K. Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Now that the Fedora Board has formally accepted the documents prepared
> by the Community Working Group regarding a code of conduct and the
> enforcement of the code of conduct, I'd like to start a discussion
> regarding the longer-term role of the Community Working Group. *While
> the enforcement of the code of conduct (particularly in serious
> circumstances) should take place at the Board level, I think there's
> general agreement that it might be helpful to have a person or group
> dedicated to helping mediate conflicts and referring cases to the
> Fedora Board as necessary. *That group could be the CWG, an elected
> ombudsman, or something else.
I think a body of Ombudsees, appointed by the FPL, confirmed by the
Board, serving 1-2 year terms. The reasons being the following:
1) Multiple people are going to be needed because unless RH is paying
for it, these people will be volunteering to deal with grumpy
2) Elections do not make sense to me in this case. The person is a
facilitator which is a set of skills not everyone has nor one that
people are going to be able to see to elect if X is better than Y.
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
advisory-board mailing list