Am Dienstag, den 12.11.2013, 07:32 -0500 schrieb Josh Boyer:
The charter is due this Friday, November 15. We have two comments
from Jens on this draft, one for suggesting a voting timeframe of
within a week of an official proposal, the other for possibly using
trac for voting. I'm fine with the timeframe, and I don't care either
way on trac or what I have in the draft below.
Please review and either approve or make suggested changes.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Here's the second draft of the charter. I think I captured most of
> the discussion to date, but there's always a chance I missed
> something. Please read this over and provide any feedback you have.
> Please pay particular attention to the (NOTE:) items.
> == 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.
> The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for
> the Work Group. The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG
> decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis.
> They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the
> WG. The liaison is not required to be a FESCo member, but should be
> able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings.
> Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become
> available. In the event that a current member relinquishes their
> seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and
> approving by majority consensus. Eligible candidates must be in the
> FPCA+1 group. The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out
> candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality
> contribution to the Workstation product.
> (NOTE: I believe this is a decent encapsulation of the discussion
> we've had thus far. I've omitted term limits for now, but I'm open to
> suggestions. The FPCA+1 requirement seems reasonable to me as we want
> to make sure they're a Fedora contributor first and foremost.
> Suggestions/questions welcome.)
I'm still having problems with this. You have incorporated the
discussion nicely with your changes, however the term "Workstation
product" gives me headache. "The Workstation product" is GNOME and will
continue to be GNOME in the foreseeable future. I do think this is the
right choice and I don't want to start yet another desktop, but for the
governance charter I would like a phrasing that does not 'exclude'
non-GNOME contributors like me and Lukáš.
How about something like
"candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality
contribution to one of Fedora's desktop environments" or "workstation
Maybe this is a different topic, but the term "Workstation product"
gives me some headache.
The rest of the charter looks good. I especially like the "lazy
consensus", we should have that more often in Fedora.