Here's the second draft of the charter.

Thanks, Josh! Overall it looks pretty good to me - I have put some comments below.

The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for the Work Group. The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis. They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the WG. The liaison is not required to be a FESCo member, but should be able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings.

good

Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become available. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and approving by majority consensus. Eligible candidates must be in the FPCA+1 group. The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality contribution to the Workstation product.

Basically looks okay to me.

What does the "+1" mean here though? Is "FPCA Group" sufficient? However some Red Hatters are in the Red Hat Employee CLA group instead.

For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we will put forth a formal proposal on the mailing list with a "[Proposal for Vote] header in the email Subject: field. Working group members can vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain; five +1 votes are necessary for a measure to pass.

Should a timeframe for voting be mentioned? Within one week?

In the event that a live meeting is held in IRC to discuss an issue, proposals will be done in much the same way. A member will put forth an official proposal by prefixing a summary of such with "Proposal:" and WG members will vote as above. Results will be recorded and posted in any meeting minutes.

Sounds reasonable

(NOTE: I chose option #2 from the previous draft for now. If you'd like to see something different, please speak up. I don't believe anyone commented on this section specifically.)

Not sure which would be more effective and practical. If we are not going to have a WG mailing-list then perhaps a trac instance would be good idea and help to separate WG business from general desktop discussion?

Do we have a wiki space yet?

Thanks, Jens

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:

...

Here's the second draft of the charter.

Thanks, Josh! Overall it looks pretty good to me - I have put some comments below.

...

The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for the Work Group. The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis. They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the WG. The liaison is not required to be a FESCo member, but should be able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings.

good

...

Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become available. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and approving by majority consensus. Eligible candidates must be in the FPCA+1 group. The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality contribution to the Workstation product.

Basically looks okay to me.

What does the "+1" mean here though? Is "FPCA Group" sufficient? However some Red Hatters are in the Red Hat Employee CLA group instead.

FPCA and Red Hat Employee CLA group are synonymous here. The +1 means "in one additional group", whether it be packager or docs or releng or QA or whatever. Just more than "signed the FPCA or equivalent".

...

For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we will put forth a formal proposal on the mailing list with a "[Proposal for Vote] header in the email Subject: field. Working group members can vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain; five +1 votes are necessary for a measure to pass.

Should a timeframe for voting be mentioned? Within one week?

That isn't a bad idea.

...

In the event that a live meeting is held in IRC to discuss an issue, proposals will be done in much the same way. A member will put forth an official proposal by prefixing a summary of such with "Proposal:" and WG members will vote as above. Results will be recorded and posted in any meeting minutes.

Sounds reasonable

...

(NOTE: I chose option #2 from the previous draft for now. If you'd like to see something different, please speak up. I don't believe anyone commented on this section specifically.)

Not sure which would be more effective and practical. If we are not going to have a WG mailing-list

By WG mailing-list do you mean a private list? We've learned over the years that private lists for committee members tend to not work out well at all. At the moment the desktop list is the mailing list for the WG. Or if you just mean a separate public WG list... I guess I'd rather do trac than that :).

then perhaps a trac instance would be good idea and help to separate WG business from general desktop discussion?

I'm fine with trac if that's what people want to do, sure. It would think it would be a public instance though, as FESCo's is.

Do we have a wiki space yet?

We didn't, but we do now. I just created this page for us to work with:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation

It's a wiki, so that means it's always in draft form and you can change it if there's something you don't like. It modelled it after the Server and Cloud pages, but we don't have a pretty graphic yet. Maybe we can convince Ryan to create one for us.

josh

Am Dienstag, den 12.11.2013, 07:32 -0500 schrieb Josh Boyer:

Hi All,

The charter is due this Friday, November 15. We have two comments from Jens on this draft, one for suggesting a voting timeframe of within a week of an official proposal, the other for possibly using trac for voting. I'm fine with the timeframe, and I don't care either way on trac or what I have in the draft below.

Please review and either approve or make suggested changes.

josh

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:

...

Hi All,

Here's the second draft of the charter. I think I captured most of the discussion to date, but there's always a chance I missed something. Please read this over and provide any feedback you have. Please pay particular attention to the (NOTE:) items.

Thanks.

josh

== Fedora Workstation WG Governance ==

This document describes the governing structure for the Fedora Workstation Work Group.

=== Membership ===

The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the liaison to FESCo.

The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for the Work Group. The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis. They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the WG. The liaison is not required to be a FESCo member, but should be able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings.

Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become available. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and approving by majority consensus. Eligible candidates must be in the FPCA+1 group. The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality contribution to the Workstation product.

(NOTE: I believe this is a decent encapsulation of the discussion we've had thus far. I've omitted term limits for now, but I'm open to suggestions. The FPCA+1 requirement seems reasonable to me as we want to make sure they're a Fedora contributor first and foremost. Suggestions/questions welcome.)

I'm still having problems with this. You have incorporated the discussion nicely with your changes, however the term "Workstation product" gives me headache. "The Workstation product" is GNOME and will continue to be GNOME in the foreseeable future. I do think this is the right choice and I don't want to start yet another desktop, but for the governance charter I would like a phrasing that does not 'exclude' non-GNOME contributors like me and Lukáš.

How about something like "candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality contribution to one of Fedora's desktop environments" or "workstation technology".

Maybe this is a different topic, but the term "Workstation product" gives me some headache.

The rest of the charter looks good. I especially like the "lazy consensus", we should have that more often in Fedora.

Best regards, Christoph

I'm perfectly fine with the draft as is:

* In terms of adding a timeline for voting - seems fine for me.

* -1 for using trac; the idea is that most real work happens *without* voting. We have to be able to have productive discussions on the mailing list. If the mailing list is too cluttered with user questions or whatever so that voting gets drowned out, then we'll need create a separate mailing list that we police to be on-topic. We can definitely see how things work out and adapt, but the fewer different communication channels that we have to monitor the better! I think using trac also means that it's hard for people with a casual interest to follow discussions.

* For the language "The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality contribution to the Workstation product." to me, this language reflects that the point of the group is to create the Workstation product and doesn't prohibit the group from also inviting members who contribute to related areas. (If they are willing to help out with planning and decision making for the Workstation product.) I dislike the "one of Fedora's desktops" language, because the point of the group *is not* to create a collection of desktops. I'm OK with "contribution to Workstation technology in Fedora" if that makes people more comfortable - though the original is better.

----- Original Message -----

Hi All,

The charter is due this Friday, November 15. We have two comments from Jens on this draft, one for suggesting a voting timeframe of within a week of an official proposal, the other for possibly using trac for voting. I'm fine with the timeframe, and I don't care either way on trac or what I have in the draft below.

Please review and either approve or make suggested changes.

josh

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:

...

Hi All,

Here's the second draft of the charter. I think I captured most of the discussion to date, but there's always a chance I missed something. Please read this over and provide any feedback you have. Please pay particular attention to the (NOTE:) items.

Thanks.

josh

== Fedora Workstation WG Governance ==

This document describes the governing structure for the Fedora Workstation Work Group.

=== Membership ===

The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the liaison to FESCo.

The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for the Work Group. The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis. They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the WG. The liaison is not required to be a FESCo member, but should be able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings.

Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become available. In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and approving by majority consensus. Eligible candidates must be in the FPCA+1 group. The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality contribution to the Workstation product.

(NOTE: I believe this is a decent encapsulation of the discussion we've had thus far. I've omitted term limits for now, but I'm open to suggestions. The FPCA+1 requirement seems reasonable to me as we want to make sure they're a Fedora contributor first and foremost. Suggestions/questions welcome.)

=== Current Members ===

• Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison) (jwb)
• Matthias Clasen (mclasen)
• Kalev Lember (kalev)
• Ryan Lerch (ryanlerch)
• Jens Petersen (juhp)
• Christian Schaller (cschalle)
• Owen Taylor (otaylor)
• Lukáš Tinkl (ltinkl)
• Christoph Wickert (cwickert)

=== Making Decisions ===

Because Fedora is a global project, members of the working group may be distributed across multiple timezones. It may be possible to have a real-time IRC meetings, but in general we will conduct business on the mailing list.

Many of our decisions can be made through "lazy consensus";. Under this model, an intended action is announced on the mailing list, discussed, and in the absence of a group of dissenting contributors within a few days, simply done.

For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we will put forth a formal proposal on the mailing list with a "[Proposal for Vote] header in the email Subject: field. Working group members can vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain; five +1 votes are necessary for a measure to pass. Non-members may comment on the item and (of course) discuss on the mailing list, but are asked to refrain from putting votes on official proposal threads.

In the event that a live meeting is held in IRC to discuss an issue, proposals will be done in much the same way. A member will put forth an official proposal by prefixing a summary of such with "Proposal:" and WG members will vote as above. Results will be recorded and posted in any meeting minutes.

(NOTE: I chose option #2 from the previous draft for now. If you'd like to see something different, please speak up. I don't believe anyone commented on this section specifically.)

=== Changing these Rules ===

This document will be approved by consensus of the initial Working Group members and approved by FESCo. After initial ratification, any substantive changes can be approved by majority vote and sent to FESCo for acceptance.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:

Hi All,

The charter is due this Friday, November 15. We have two comments from Jens on this draft, one for suggesting a voting timeframe of within a week of an official proposal, the other for possibly using trac for voting. I'm fine with the timeframe, and I don't care either way on trac or what I have in the draft below.

Please review and either approve or make suggested changes.

I've incorporated the changes suggested by Christoph and Jens and put the draft on the wiki here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Governance

I plan to submit this to FESCo tomorrow (the due date). If you have any other comments/suggestions, please speak now.

josh

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Governance

Thank you - looks good to me.

Jens