Governance

[Mike Dittmeier]

I agree!

As a Project Manger by choice (not design) I have always tried to have a
minimal quorum to make steering decisions on what requests should
actually become projects. More ideas exist than resources, and not all
ideas match the goals of the Docs Project. My minimal quorum consists of
a Chair and Vice Chair with a sponsor (person making the request) and the
project lead (Implementer).

Chair and Vice Chair should lead the direction for all projects and sub
project. Without clear direction, an over abundance of ideas could lead
to a loss of direction or even fragmentation of the original scope the
Docs Project was designed to serve.

The Sponsor and Project Leads should report status, and poll for
resources to complete the projects. These last two positions should not
be voted on in my opinion, only the Chair and Vice Chair. A one year term
that is staggered for election purposes would mean only 2 elections a
year.

A little more than 2 cents, but who’s counting

Mike “Ditt” Dittmeier



  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Eric Christensen"
  To: "For participants of the Documentation Project"
  Subject: Re: Governance
  Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:46:22 -0400


  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
  Hash: SHA1

  Paul,
  What positions are needed? I could see a Chair and a Vice Chair (or
  whatever you wanted to call them) that would ultimately be in charge
  of
  the project. They could serve one year terms that could be staggered
  (one start in January and one start July). Their responsibilities
  would
  be to lead the meetings, approve draft documentation for release, and
  to
  kick butt as necessary.

  My opinion...

  Eric



  Paul W. Frields wrote:
  | re: This part of Wednesday's meeting:
  | = = = = =
  | * We're just not sure the current elections scheme is serving us
  well.
  | Pushing discussion to the list for wider input. How much does
  | governance matter to folks?
  | ** In light of Docs role with contributors embedded in SIGs
  | ** How subprojects govern themselves in the hands of subprojs?
  | = = = = =
  |
  | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects
  |
  | According to the current policy, to be a "project" (meaning an
  official
  | subproject) there has to be some sort of governance in place,
  "possibly
  | including an election or selection scheme." So we have some leeway
  to
  | do what we think needs to be done to empower Docs to get things
  done.
  | If elections are too often, too much, too early, or whatever the
  popular
  | opinion may be, I think we just need to decide on what the new
  scheme
  | will be.
  |
  | Would it make sense, rather than to have a sort of "global Docs
  | committee" like FDSCo, instead just have people who agree to take
  up the
  | banner for particular interest areas, and we could still meet
  regularly
  | as we do now? Those assignments could be somewhat formal in nature,
  and
  | noted on the wiki so community members know who's responsible for
  each
  | area.
  |
  |
  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
  Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
  Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

  iEYEARECAAYFAkg22LoACgkQL5V8yddJCO3NGQCfZZi1gH2xYfLw04JzMh08uvZd
  KSkAnjrIroI2e4GXYll42kgoulu0TmG8
  =D6QP
  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  -- fedora-docs-list mailing list
  fedora-docs-list at redhat.com
  To unsubscribe:
  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list



Mike Dittmeier
mike at vegasitpros.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20080523/8b64ad2f/attachment.htm>