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.
=== Current Members ===
* Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison) (jwb)
* Matthias Clasen (mclasen)
* Kalev Lember (kalev)
* Ryan Lerch (ryanlerch)
* Jens Petersen (juhp)
* Christian Schaller (cschalle)
* Owen Taylor (otaylor)
* Lukáš Tinkl (ltinkl)
* Christoph Wickert (cwickert)
=== 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 in the absence of a group of dissenting contributors
within 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 put forth a formal proposal on the mailing list with a
"[Proposal for Vote] header in the email Subject: field. 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 on official proposal threads.
In the event that a live meeting is held in IRC to discuss an issue,
proposals will be done in much the same way. A member will put forth
an official proposal by prefixing a summary of such with "Proposal:"
and WG members will vote as above. Results will be recorded and
posted in any meeting minutes.
(NOTE: I chose option #2 from the previous draft for now. If you'd
like to see something different, please speak up. I don't believe
anyone commented on this section specifically.)
=== 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