Fedora-Council ticket #447: Fedora Council Policy proposal: equalize “auxiliary” positions

[t2dbot (Tickets to Discussion Bridge)]

@mattdm filed Fedora-Council/tickets ticket #447. Discuss here and record votes and decisions in the ticket.

Ticket text:

@@mattdm

In 2014, when the Fedora Board first approved the new Council structure, we intentionally kept the scope small, creating just six “core” positions: two hired by Red Hat, two selected from community leadership committees, and two elected at-large. Other roles — the Fedora Program Manager, DEI Advisor, and Initiative Leads (formerly Objective Leads) were designated as “auxiliary”. These positions came with this restriction: “votes in the consensus process are expected to be related to the scope of the respective role.”

At the time, some members of the Board were worried about the possibility of undue influence from appointed seats, or with someone exerting control over parts of the project outside their own area of expertise. In practice, in all of the eight years of the Council’s existence, we’ve never had any such problem. (And, if we ever did, our consensus-based decision-making process is an effective check.) On the other hand, this limitation has had negative effects: people in these roles feel less empowered to act, and unsure about their standing as a “real” member of the Council.

At our hackfest earlier this year, the Council agreed that we want to drop the distinction, and instead have all members on an equal footing. Since this is a formal change to our policies, this announcement and subsequent community discussion are part of our policy change process.

After two weeks (April 21), we’ll vote on this using our full consensus process — another week to collect official votes in the Council ticket (April 28, unless everyone has voted earlier than that). And following that, I’ll make a PR to update the text of the Council Charter.