On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
The first goal of the Working Group process is to plan our governance process for future members of the Server Working Group. I think the place we should start is by gathering a list of requirements that a governance charter will need to keep in mind. I'll list my thoughts below, please raise your own concerns as well.
Proposals in-line; in general, I prefer not worrying about this too much / not inventing too much now, and getting to the real work instead. We can adjust the rules after a few months when we see what is/isn't working.
== Voting Members ==
- Number of voting members for the Working Group.
Let's assume to continue with 9.
- How long a term do the voting members serve?
FESCo-like, 2 groups of 1 year each, overlapping for 6 months.
Elections to happen within the "combined election cycle" together with FESCo/Board etc. . (I'm unsure about including the elections that are planned soon after the PRD deliverable - it might be a good time to see how the community feels about the PRD, OTOH by that time we'll still not have enough idea about the actual implementation proces.)
The 2 groups can be seeded by voting all seats in the first election, with the top 5 seats to be for 12 months, and the next 4 seats for 6 months.
- Should there be term limits or mandatory breaks?
Let's not worry about that now. We haven't felt the need for them in the other bodies so far.
- Should there be reserved chairs for specific constituencies (e.g.
QA, Ambassadors, Release Engineering)?
Let's not worry about that now. (?)
- Who can vote?[2]
FPCA+1, with an unenforced request for only people participating in the server product to vote?
- Recalls?
Let's not worry about that now. We haven't felt the need for them in the other bodies so far.
- How do we later amend the charter?[4]
[4] I think amendments should require "voting members - 1". It shouldn't be possible for a single dissenting vote to hold things up (they should get to have their say), but otherwise I think that a near-unanimous vote should be required to change the fundamental
Assuming this to be a rare situation, I'd prefer not making up too complex rules for this, we should just avoid the risk of obvious abuse. The above, or "5 voting members + FESCo ACK" would work for me. Mirek