On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:26:13AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:05:57 -0700
> Toshio Kuratomi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Taking off my board member hat for a moment, I think that there's a
> > very real benefit to having a group of moderators who are not on the
> > Fedora Board who can work to mediate conflicts. Two reasons I see
> > are:
> > * There are times I'd like mediation where one of the parties is the
> > Board itself. This necessitates a third party that is not the Board.
> Well, the same could be said for the situation when one of the parties
> is on the CWG? Or should there be a CWG^prime to handle those.
The Board generally "speaks with one voice". So from the outside it seems
like a single unit that is issuing decisions. A CWG that doesn't make
decisions inside of itself can project its image differently. The idea
would be that you can't have an issue with the CWG as a group because it
doesn't make decisions as a group. You might have an issue with CWG member
toshio in his role as an FPC member, but then you should be able to utilize
CWG mediator bpepple to discuss your differences with the FPC instead.
Will this work in practice or will it degenerate into an "old-boys club"?
I think it will work if the members are conscious about not becoming an
inside club (maybe establish rules about recusing ones' self and whether
a recused member can offer advice to the mediator in charge of that
dispute). Trying it out for a bit would tell us more if people are
interested in participating.
> > So if the current CWG members would like to disband, I would like to
> > see a new group of moderators formed. If no one else steps up,
> > perhaps I can work on that after I leave the Board (although, I'll
> > still be on the FPC which has its own share of issues that would
> > benefit from an outside moderator from time to time).
> If there's a need for the CWG, I could see it continuing, but at the
> very least the following need to happen:
> * The board needs to agree it's a long term body (the wiki page still
> says "This charter will stand until one year after ratification (Oct
> 25, 2010), at which point it will be revisited and an updated charter
> submitted for renewal and continuation of the Community Working
+1. Sounds like a good plan to me.
> * The board should determine how members are added/replaced. We had a
> member bow out a long time ago with no replacement. Is there a time
> limit for serving? (All the usual replacement and succession stuff).
Scanning old email threads really, really briefly, it looks like there were
two proposals for succession:
* People volunteer to serve on it (much like QA or current EPEL is run)
* Board appoints people to it.
Any other brainstorming ideas?
advisory-board mailing list