Hi All,
Below is a draft governance charter for the Workstation WG. I have taken much of this from the Cloud WG draft charter (found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_WG) to have some commonality between groups. I left some of the sections from that off for now, as I think that is their main landing page and we can fill in those sections with our relevant details as we go.
Please read it over and provide any feedback or ask any questions you may have. 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.
Members of the Working Group serve two year terms. At the end of the two year period, FESCo will either renew the FESCo liaison or appoint a new one. 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. If there are no candidates available or remaining from the previous election, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and approving by majority consensus.
NOTE: Clearly all of the above is open for discussion. I've modelled it after how FESCo current does their membership to a large degree. If we want something else, please follow up with alternative suggestions.
=== Current Members ===
* Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison) * Matthias Clasen * Kalev Lember * Ryan Lerch * Jens Petersen * Christian Schaller * Owen Taylor * Lukáš Tinkl * Christoph Wickert
=== 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 if there is no controversy or dissenting views with 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 [1]... 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.
[1] NOTE: for the workstation WG, we have the following option for dispute resolution:
1) Use a trac ticketing system as the cloud WG is doing 2) Come up with an official proposal voting system on the mailing list (specific "Subject: [Proposal for Vote] ..." or something). 3) Schedule an IRC meeting and do the vote live.
I'm fine with any of these, though I will point out that live meetings across all of our relevant timezones are difficult. If we choose to have a trac ticketing system (which can be used for votes and for people to report issues), I can get that created.
=== 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.
Hey,
----- Original Message ----- <snip>
=== Current Members ===
- Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison)
- Matthias Clasen
- Kalev Lember
- Ryan Lerch
- Jens Petersen
- Christian Schaller
- Owen Taylor
- Lukáš Tinkl
- Christoph Wickert
As mentioned during the IRC meeting, I think that the settling on the number of members, and names of members, is probably premature, until we have the product requirements document.
Other comments: - the document doesn't mention what happens if a member was to relinquish his seat before the first elections occur. - the vocabulary used in the "making decisions" section is a little sloppy, in my opinion. What's a "controversy"? Whose "dissenting views" would be taken into account? What about decisions made upstream, do they get to be vouched for again?
The rest looks fine to me.
Cheers
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com wrote:
Hey,
----- Original Message -----
<snip> > === Current Members === > > * Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison) > * Matthias Clasen > * Kalev Lember > * Ryan Lerch > * Jens Petersen > * Christian Schaller > * Owen Taylor > * Lukáš Tinkl > * Christoph Wickert
As mentioned during the IRC meeting, I think that the settling on the number of members, and names of members, is probably premature, until we have the product requirements document.
The number and names of the current members are already set for the initial voting members. That was driven by FESCo to get the WG started. We can change those members after the PRD and governance models are approved by FESCo, but for the immediate future the above people are the voting members.
Specifically on the number of seats, there seemed to be at least somewhat of a consensus that 9 was a decent number. I wouldn't want to go any more than 9. 7 would probably also be acceptable. 5 is starting to get too small, in my opinion.
Other comments:
- the document doesn't mention what happens if a member was to relinquish his seat before the first elections occur.
Correct. There was some discussion in the IRC channel today that elections in general might be too heavy-weight for this WG. If people would like, we can use something where people doing great work in the product are somehow promoted to the WG when a seat vacates for whatever reason. The packaging group has something like this. I just want to make sure we have a good mix of continuity and new members so we don't wind up thrashing decisions while still getting fresh points of view.
This is probably the item in most need of discussion, so I'm interested in hearing what others suggest. I plan on sending a v2 of the draft once we get some further details hammered out.
- the vocabulary used in the "making decisions" section is a little sloppy, in my opinion. What's a "controversy"? Whose "dissenting views" would be taken into account? What about
Anything the WG doesn't agree to in the majority? I agree the wording could be cleared up. I stole it verbatim from the cloud group. Do you have suggestions here? As for dissenting views, I would like to think that we listen to all view points from those participating. Clearly a single person disagreeing isn't going to sway things, but if there are valid points of disagreement and a number of people are expressing them, we should at least take the time to understand those.
decisions made upstream, do they get to be vouched for again?
I'm not sure what you mean by vouched for. I don't see a need to have seats designated explicitly for upstream(s). I would expect any voting member participating to take both Fedora and whatever upstream is into consideration. Perhaps waiting for the PRD will help clarify some of this.
josh
Giving the FESCO rep a two year term seems to be a potential problem as they wouldn't be guaranteed to be in FESCO for two years and most of the time you'd probably want the rep to be a member of FESCO. Maybe the FESCO rep should just serve at the pleasure of FESCO?
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
Giving the FESCO rep a two year term seems to be a potential problem as they wouldn't be guaranteed to be in FESCO for two years and most of the time you'd probably want the rep to be a member of FESCO. Maybe the FESCO rep should just serve at the pleasure of FESCO?
I opened a ticket[1] for clarifying exactly what FESCo intended with the liaison role. They just decided that:
1) The FESCo liaison is always a member of the WG's decision making body 2) WGs can decide how the FESCo liaison is selected, including the possibility of asking FESCo to select. (As FESCo is above the WGs, FESCo could ask WGs to re-choose.)
So the role isn't "a member of FESCo on the WG". It's "a member of the WG that acts as the liaison to FESCo". I'll clarify this in the next draft I send out.
josh
On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 13:42 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Giving the FESCO rep a two year term seems to be a potential problem as they wouldn't be guaranteed to be in FESCO for two years and most of the time you'd probably want the rep to be a member of FESCO. Maybe the FESCO rep should just serve at the pleasure of FESCO?
Well, our 'rep' is not in fesco now, so I don't think it would make a big difference. I'm pretty sure that fesco is pleased by his service, though...
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org