Board term limits

[Christopher Aillon]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> The problem at hand was the perceived dominance by full-time Fedora
> people on the Board.  People who spend their entire $DAYJOB as well as
> their spare time on Fedora are automatically very involved and visible.
> That can translate directly to votes on the basis of name recognition,
> which really disadvantages people who are very involved, but in a
> somewhat more limited fashion because they don't have the luxury of
> doing Fedora all day every day.  (Maybe a similar advantage would go to
> someone unemployed, but let's not argue that for right now.) ;-)
> 
> As a secondary note, the people who do spend their entire $DAYJOB on
> Fedora are extremely likely to be Red Hat folks.  In an average election
> then, we generate the *perception* that Red Hat is still stacking the
> Board.  The idea of term limits came up as a way to limit the effects of
> $DAYJOB on this process to some extent, while not shutting people from
> Red Hat out based on their $DAYJOB, either.

I think there's a big distinction between RHT employees paid to work on 
Fedora full time and RHT employees who aren't.  Perhaps a better way to 
solve this problem would be to limit the number of concurrently serving 
people from a given business unit within RHT.  And possibly move to an 
internal election rather than seemingly random appointments.