Hi Mark et all, There are rumors that the changes to the governance board were voted on January 9th, and I can partially see it in the meeting notes <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Nr8QpqYgBiZjORplL_3Zkwys2qK1vEvK-NYyYa4rzg/edit#heading=h.86ehtrl3jc4g> .
I am a bit confused by the current state, because: - As far as I can tell, there was no formal voting on the mailing list. Many people are likely to have missed the voting, especially since it was announced only on January 8th as a part of the long agenda message: https://groups.google.com/g/jenkinsci-dev/c/URtrswvJDH4/m/SsjfCARZAAAJ . At least, I missed the voting and I would have maintained -1 given the open conversation with Mark in governance board channel and the follow up meeting we were about to have. - As far as I can tell, the decision was not announced in the developer mailing list or in other venues after 1 month - The governance documentation was not updated, there were no steps identified - https://www.jenkins.io/project/governance - https://www.jenkins.io/project/board-election-process/ Wearing my governance board member hat, I am not sure we can call the voting on this matter completed Best regards, Oleg Nenashev On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 6:49:19 PM UTC+1 Mark Waite wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 12:57:14 AM UTC-7 Ullrich Hafner wrote: > >> I am currently -1 for this change, but I do not yet have access to the >> full governance board discussion yet. >> >> Basically, the reasoning for this change is not clear for me. Looking >> back in the history of the governance board, we are 4 active members making >> all the decisions. As far as I remember, Kohsuke did not participate in a >> decision in the last couple of years. So in practice we have 4 votes in our >> meetings, and if 2 of these votes are from one company this company can >> block any decision. They have not majority, but we have a stalemate which >> is a potential risk. So I would prefer to not change the current situation. >> It would even make sense to update the current rule so that no company can >> get 50% of the 4 elected seats. Then we do not need discuss if Kohsuke is >> affiliated with Cloudbees or not. >> >> > If the root of your concern is stalemate due to two people elected from a > single company, then the current rules already create the potential for > that situation today. If two people from Red Hat, JFrog, AWS, Google, > Microsoft, or any other company (with two exceptions) were to be elected to > the Jenkins board, that would be allowed by the current rules. They would > not have a majority on the board (2 out of 5) but would be 50% of the > active participating members of the board. There are two companies > (CloudBees and Launchable) that are blocked from having two elected members > of the board because the current rule disallows a majority of board members > to be affiliated with a single company and the current practice has been to > declare that Kohsuke is affiliated with CloudBees. > > I agree with Basil's observation that we've seen no example of stalemate > in the several years that I've been involved with the board. The most > controversial topic brought to the board recently was this proposal to > change the rules related to membership of the board. It had 3 board > members in favor, one board member opposed, and Kohsuke stated his support > of the proposal separately. > > I'm far less concerned with the risk of stalemate than I am with the risk > of work not being completed that helps the Jenkins project succeed. > > Mark Waite > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/82699ca4-5a10-4ab6-96d6-e8b1a5d4a9d5n%40googlegroups.com.
