On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ray Strode <halfline(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> The other positions will be filled by general election
>> every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in
>> one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of
>> members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora
>> election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group.
>>
>> In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat
>> will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If
>> that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to
>> each successive runner up until the seat is filled.
>
> I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group
> decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the
> work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes.
> (the whole "fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy" thing).
>
> Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related
> software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud
> working group, or vice-versa.
>
> Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction
> of the work.
> If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't
> think that will happen.
Fair. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike the
idea of doing full blown elections. They seem overkill and cumbersome
when it comes to coordinating, etc.
In your opinion, should we have term limits imposed to ensure we have
fresh members coming into the WG? As I said in another email, I think
we should shoot for some continuity while also encouraging new members
to step up.
josh
