Am 12.02.2021 um 05:16 schrieb Chris Murphy
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:01 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Please remember: According to our rules (Government Charter), Working Group
membership is not a prerequisite for participation in voting and decision-making!
I think you do want the Working Group to be the voting members, as it
is a FESCo subcommittee. That way it's clear who makes decisions, and
who are expected to show up for regular meetings.
I am just trying to suggest a practicable and viable way forward in the current obviously
difficult situation. And I think it is currently best to stick to the existing procedures
and rules for the time being. Once we are sailing on safe ground again, we may need to
make more workable adjustments.
With regard to voting, our Governance Charter explicitly states:
"The Server Working Group strives to work on consensus and only vote on things where
it’s clear people aren’t going to be convinced to agree. … at least three Working Group
members must be present. … Votes are accepted by all participants in the meeting (not just
those of Working Group members), so the community is highly encouraged to join. … "
I understand this to mean that not only WG members vote, but also the
"community", without distinction, which in our case would/could be the SIG.
And who you ask to
resign when they haven't shown up for six months or whatever you
We did talk about the question of member removal when redoing
Workstation WG governance a year ago. I took the position that it
didn't need a written procedure. Just ask. If that fails (I mean
honestly, who would say no if asked to resign?) then you can file a
private FESCo ticket and they can deal with it.
I am sceptical whether a "private ticket" is the right way to go. It is not very
consensual and not very community-based. But I agree with establishing as few rules as
possible so as not to complicate processes.
So the section under (c) should be dropped for the time being.
do think that regular meetings are important, however brief.
Agreed! According to my overview, no one has argued against this so far.
And also another change we made was having cycle based permanent
and Vice-Chair positions, to help establish stable leadership.
Agreed. Especially in our current situation, this makes a lot of sense.
The Workstation Charter sets quite precise requirements for a candidacy for membership:
„… seek out candidates that have been showing persistent and high-quality contribution to
Workstation technology or direction.“ And there are just 10 members.
I think this is very sensible and necessary. But unfortunately it also excludes interested
parties and makes a community process more difficult.
With our SIG, we are opening a way for interested parties to make a more limited, but yes
still helpful and valuable effort. And they are also involved in decisions, no one is
excluded. That way may not be perfect, I think it is nevertheless quite advantageous.
What follows from these considerations? @Chris Murphy, what do you suggest?
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with all 19 existing members and
interested parties (and shut down or ignore the SIG, at least for the time being)?
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with the existing active members
and the interested ones "that have been showing persistent and high-quality
contribution"? And who could that be?
* Or should we go yet another way?
I think we need to come up with a workable solution quickly and should not spend a lot
more of time on ourselves.