Board term limits

[Luis Villa]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Christopher Aillon <caillon at redhat.com> wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that a term limit would just get a different set of
>> full-timers on the board. If full-timers are the problem (and I agree
>> that they might be) you might consider instead a cap on the number of
>> people who work on fedora full time. The GNOME Board does something
>> similar (no more than 40% of seats be held by any one company) and it
>> seems to work pretty well for us.
>
> In the event that more than 40% of the Board's elected membership is from
> one company, how do you bring it down to 40%?

If X people from the company can be on the board, and X+N are elected,
then the first X people from the company and the next N votegetters
(who would not otherwise have been elected) are put on the board. I'm
admittedly not sure how this would work with the staggered Fedora
board.

> My big concern is that there are many parts of Red Hat which have legitimate
> reasons to want to have some board membership, and having the full-timers
> who are most in the public eye get the popularity vote is pretty unfair to
> people from the RHEL, JBoss, etc. groups who may wish to participate.

Well, right. I think you're definitely better off resolving the
problem by making it easier for non-fulltimers/non-RHers to be on the
board, instead of making it harder for those people to stay on. But if
you have to choose the latter, I'm just suggesting a different way to
do it.

Luis