RFC: FESCo Future

Chris Weyl cweyl at alumni.drew.edu
Tue Apr 25 03:43:31 UTC 2006

On 4/24/06, Warren Togami <wtogami at redhat.com> wrote:
> In my opinion, we don't need to expire people for time reasons.  It is
> unnecessary overhead to go through this just for the sake of having
> elections.
> Instead we should expire people voluntarily or if they haven't actually
> done anything.  That alone would open many spots and allow fresh blood in.
> People should vote in new members if they have earned respect of fellow
> community members.  Generally this requires doing things in Extras.

That brings to mind an (potentially) interesting thought -- the
concept of a California-style "recall election."  Sort of a
two-pronged vote:  first, "should X remain on FESCo?", second "Who
should serve on FESCo?"  Essentially, a vote of confidence followed by
votes for different candidates; those losing their seats under the
first part would be replaced by those in the second part.

That being said...  I'd second the call for staggered terms,
regardless of appointed, elected, chosen by the Great Pumpkin. 
Stability and continuity of membership in an organization where so
much is transmitted and done day to day by (mostly) volunteers is
essential for the continued efficacy of such an institution; both
internally and in its relations with the outside world.  We ought to
support it institutionally when possible.


Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list