Fedora Board election results

[Greg Dekoenigsberg]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> But ask yourselves:
>
> * What does the board do which directly impacts "joe average Fedora
> contributor"? IMO, almost nothing - It's FESCO, which does.

There is some truth to this.  To some degree, this is by design.  If 
Fedora governance as a whole is working effectively, problems are resolved 
before they reach the board.  A board that is meddling in every decision 
does not scale.

Sometimes the board squabbles about issues like Codeina.  Sometimes the 
board deals with difficult legal/policy issues that are, in fact, 
*extremely* impactful to the Fedora community, but can't be discussed 
openly.  And I can understand how sometimes it seems like the board 
doesn't do much.

> * How has the board been composed so far? An overwhelming RH majority.

Yes.  But consider: a good number of people on the board did *not* work 
for Red Hat when they first joined the community.  For people who aspire 
to work on Fedora full-time, serving on the board is one of the most 
effective means of getting there.

> * How do you expect the board be composed in future?
> %50 RH assigned seats, the rest is being elected by a RH dominated group
> of voters.

Just because the group of voters is RH-dominated today doesn't mean it 
will be that way forever.  Bear in mind: the membership has more than 
doubled in a matter of a few months.

> So, everything but seeing a ca. 2/3-3/4 RH-dominated board would be a 
> surprise. The next board will have a 90-100% RH-dominated board, well, 
> the overall situation hasn't changed at all. This board is designed to 
> be a RH internal business.

You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it so.  If you want to 
assert that the *effect* is that it feels as though RH is making too many 
decisions, that's fine, and that's a worthwhile discussion.  But for you 
to assert that the *intent* of the board is to be "RH internal business" 
is a slap in the face to all of the people who have stuggled against *very 
long odds* to create a public governance model for Fedora.

>> Now for finding candidates.. you can always run yourself or find
>> someone you want to run and get them nominated (eg get them to want to
>> run).
>
> One can't do everything oneself. That's one of fundamental working
> principles of democracy. I simply could not find "the candidate" I would
> like to vote for and therefore resorted to "voting for the least evil".
>
> If I wasn't a deeply convinced democrat, who takes participating in
> votes for governments for granted, I probably would have abstained the
> vote.

This is a perfect example of why governments frequently suck -- because 
people leave the hard work of governance to others.  Here's the facts: 
democratic governments, all over the world, are usually run by the people 
who bother to show up.

I can see a lot of good points in the discussion.  But if it all boils 
down to "I don't have time to participate in Fedora governance," then just 
say that.  Because that's really what you are saying.

--g