FESCo future

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi!

Paul W. Frields schrieb:
> On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 20:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Paul W. Frields schrieb:
>>> 1/  We need to get away from substituting "community members" for
>>> "non-Red Hat employees."  Red Hatters are community members too, and the
>>> unspoken implication is that there is a big wall there.  The very fact
>>> that we're combining Core and Extras shows how much this factionism has
>>> dwindled over the past three years.
>> Well, I agree with that in general. But I suspect if we don't have a "at
>> leat xx% need to be non-redhatters" rule a lot of people will say "this
>> is just another round in the never ending Red Hat game where they say to
>> get the community involved without giving them rights". I'd like to
>> avoid that. Any better idea?
> Sorry, I should have been more clear -- I just had a concern with the
> wording.  I think when we mean, "non-Red Hat employees," we should use
> those words, since "community members" (in my mind) includes Red Hatters
> and non-Red Hatters.

Okay, will re-word as outlined.

> [...]
>>>>  * If there is deadlock in a voting the decision is either deferred and
>>>> brought back up in the next meeting or it is presented to the FPB for
>>>> further discussion/guidance.
>>> Is there a reason you went for an even number of seats?  With an odd
>>> number, naturally the majority of seats have to be held either by Red
>>> Hat employees or not.
>> And that's what I wanted to avoid.
> But an election is likely to produce a majority one way or the other,
> unless you want exactly 50% each of Red Hat and non-Red Hat folks.  (And
> I would bet the majority by election, in the absence of some other
> controlling regulation, is likely to result in non-RH folks outnumbering
> the RH ones.) 

Hmm, all I wanted to avoid is that more than 50% of the members are from
Red Hat as a lot of people won't like that.

> I don't think it's a big worry either way,

Agreed; we in FESCo until now tried to find consensus where at least
nobody said "-1". That won't work that easy in the FPCSC, but I think we
generally should avoid even situations where 9 people support a proposal
while 7 are against it. So I think a 8 vs. 8 is not a big deal and if it
really happens we can forward the issue to the FPC as that might be the
best in such a situation in any case ;)

> since there's
> probably more chance of one group's members disagreeing among themselves
> than there is for the groups to go all West Side Story on each other.

:-)

>>>  But the veto rights assigned to special seats and
>>> the chair should offset any worries of the minority group.
>> Hmmm. I still prefer a even number of seats to void problems from the
>> start -- nobody should be forced to use the veto rights to often.
> So did you mean we should have *exactly* 50% each Red Hat and non-Red
> Hat seats, as opposed to "at least 50% [non-Red Hat] community members"?

No, if we run into 50% each Red Hat and non-Red Hat seats -- fine. If we
have 55% non-Red Hat seats vs 45% from Red Hat -- fine for me, too. All
I want to prevent is 45% non-Red Hat seats vs 55% from Red Hat ;)

But I can also accept hardcoding 50% for both sides if people want that.
A uneven number of seats, too, if people prefer that.

> [...]

CU
thl