Fedora Board Recap 2009-04-29

[inode0]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:18 PM, John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-29
>
> == Roll Call ==
>
> * Board Members: Paul Frields, Dimitris Glezos, Bill Nottingham, Spot
> Callaway, Matt Domsch, Seth Vidal, Jesse Keating, Chris Tyler, Christopher
> Aillon
> * Regrets: Harald Hoyer
> * Secretary: John Poelstra
>
> ... snip ...
>
> == What is Fedora? ==
> * previously:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-22#What_is_Fedora.3F
> * Paul:
> # Have we finished discussing this topic?
> # What is the board's role: arbitrate problems or lead with new initiatives?

As someone who has been trying to understand the role of the board for
a while I'm going to stop being so hard on myself for failing now. Was
that a rhetorical question? If the board really does not know the role
of the board I think it is a good time to take a deep breath.

> Discussion occurred; proposals and decisions have been tabled to the next
> meeting.
>
> ''' BRAINSTORMING FOLLOWS -- THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BOARD POLICY
> OR DECISION '''
>
> * Paul
> ** Is the board OK with the current process we are on surrounding defining
> Fedora and its goals and purposes? ((have we answered this question?))

As a community member I would ask if the community is OK with the
current process you are on surrounding defining Fedora and its goals
and purposes?

Are you just trying to capture the essence of what Fedora actually is
in the new mission statement and related documents? In that case it
would seem the community has already defined what Fedora is. Or do you
feel you can define it to be what you want it to be irrespective of
what it actually is today?

> ** Suggests that board next move forward with a prioritized list of goals
> for Fedora. To do that we need a foundation for what Fedora is about
> ** How do we decide what is most important to Fedora? ((have we answered
> this question?))

I don't think you get to decide this?! I suppose you can say X is most
important but if X isn't  most important to the Fedora community it
isn't going to mean anything to say that it is.

> ** Could this affect release processes and policies and what drives them?
> ** How does the board help guide and lead the project?
> * Matt: board should be more than judges, we should lead new initiatives

As a community grows the role of a governance body like the board's
changes over time or it becomes a hindrance rather than a help to the
community.

When the project was new, lots needed to be done to get some coherent
structure in the community, not to mention getting the community built
to start with. Things settle for a while, the community forms into
some more or less stable shape. This shape isn't ideal and to resolve
structural problems the board sees opportunities to lead new
initiatives to reorganize things into a more coherent community
structure. Things again settle into a new more or less stable shape.
Not seeing the sorts of opportunities for leadership that existed in
the earlier periods the board begins wondering what its purpose is.
This might just be a good thing indicating that the project is well
structured and moving in a positive direction.

Sometimes it is best to just let the horse run. Other times the horse
needs encouragement and guidance. The great jockeys are the ones that
know when to sit back and enjoy the ride.

I don't presume to know if this is one of those times, but wouldn't rule it out.

> ... snip ...

John