When forming the initial leadership team at Red Hat focused on bringing the 2.0 release to life, we agreed that this was a temporary governance model.
Our own practices suggest that we have a democratically elected group to lead the project; and that if we were to keep with our current model over time, it would eventually become toxic.
So the plan has been--which I am continuing now, here--to start the discussion about what our own governance should look like in the world after the 2.0 release. Now that we have a growing contributor base, it's a good time to start tracking this topic.
Keep in mind that while we are focused as a community around a 2.0 release of a guide, we are in reality a wider community of practice. Before long, the guide will be just one of our outputs. We want to be thinking about governance in that context. The current model is designed primarily around book production, and won't hold up to the needs of a more widely focused contributor project
When forming the initial leadership team at Red Hat focused on bringing the 2.0 release to life, we agreed that this was a temporary governance model.
Our own practices suggest that we have a democratically elected group to lead the project; and that if we were to keep with our current model over time, it would eventually become toxic.
So the plan has been--which I am continuing now, here--to start the discussion about what our own governance should look like in the world after the 2.0 release. Now that we have a growing contributor base, it's a good time to start tracking this topic.
Keep in mind that while we are focused as a community around a 2.0 release of a guide, we are in reality a wider community of practice. Before long, the guide will be just one of our outputs. We want to be thinking about governance in that context. The current model is designed primarily around book production, and won't hold up to the needs of a more widely focused contributor project