All FAmSCo members attended the meeting today, please read the minutes if you like to know more: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-02-15/famsco.2017-02...
Hi ambassadors,
while reading the meeting log and some more stuff (like FAmSCo ticket on vacant seat) I got more and more upset. The issue with the last election is a serious one, but some people here "discuss" on preschool level… I don't call any names here but encourage everyone to read the logs and build an own opinion. Please don't forget the four Fedora foundations, one of them is "Friends"! Fedora is a friendly and transparent community, not a kindergarten… It makes me angry, that is such an important topic.
On the vacant seat topic I have some thoughts (I'm still not sure what the proposed solution is, finally, so maybe my thoughts are not up to date. Please correct me if I'm wrong): * fredlima should not have been a candidate for formal reasons. But it happened and we cannot change this. Note that this is a *purely* formal argument, I don't know fredlima and he might be a very good FAmSCo member as many community members voted for him. So this is *really* nothing personal here.
* I see that other candidate(s) are upset because they might have been in FAmSCo when the election would have been correct. gnokii might be the first candidate as he got the most votes of the people who didn't get into new FAmSCo, but it is hard to say how the distribution of votes would have been without fredlima. So I consider all remaining candidates.
* On the other hand people who voted for fredlima might be upset too… I don't know why he was not an ambassador right now and how long he is an "informal ambassador" now. But people voted for him and this must have a reason, so completely ignoring would be a bad idea too…
* So *IMHO* we need some kind of voting with all candidates for the remaining seat. This includes fredlima, as he is an ambassador now and the many votes for him are another reason to give him the opportunity to be a candidate. But other candidates should get the chance too, as one of them would be in FAmSCo now.
* I dived a bit into the election rules. Is it right that we have no clear rule for such cases (well, a case that should not happen, needs no rule for handling, true…)? The vacant seat stuff seems to be viable for me.
* The most important point: Find a transparent and clean solution without any tweaks (like just mentoring fredlima without any further voting, as someone proposed), this is very important for trust!
* Can someone from FAmSCo inform us about the current proposed solution? I have some vague idea, but as there are many discussions, I don't want to write anything wrong or outdated info here.
* And… Please inform us ambassadors about the topic and all progress! I got the information trough some IRC discussion… From this discussions I know that also some other ambassadors (who are not candidates, so they are "unaffected") are unhappy with that topic.
That's everything for now. And again: Be friends and a friendly community ;)
For fredlima: As you are an ambassador now, it would be nice if you introduce yourself here :)
Greetings, Christian
On 02/15/2017 10:13 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
All FAmSCo members attended the meeting today, please read the minutes if you like to know more: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-02-15/famsco.2017-02...
-- Robert Mayr (robyduck)
ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hey Christian,
thanks for reaching out, first of all.
On February 16, 2017 at 1:10 PM Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com wrote:
Hi ambassadors, while reading the meeting log and some more stuff (like FAmSCo ticket on vacant seat) I got more and more upset. The issue with the last election is a serious one, but some people here "discuss" on preschool level… I don't call any names here but encourage everyone to read the logs and build an own opinion. Please don't forget the four Fedora foundations, one of them is "Friends"! Fedora is a friendly and transparent community, not a kindergarten… It makes me angry, that is such an important topic.
As you can realise, this is has been a very unique situation. I don't recall having dealt with something similar in the past.
There have been a series of "mistakes" that took place: - Fredlima may have run for FAmSCo while not belonging to any ambassadors group on FAS, however the FAmSCo election rules[0] are not clear enough. Is is stated that "Candidates may be any member of the ambassadors group in the Fedora Accounts System". Note the use of the word "may", which suggests possibility rather than obligation. - The elections system[1] allowed fredlima to run for FAmSCo normally, without any restrictions system-wise. - There has been conducted no eligibility check for candidates running for FAmSCo.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm merely trying to provide everyone with some background information. Mistakes can happen and we should definitely make sure to prevent similar issues in the future.
On the vacant seat topic I have some thoughts (I'm still not sure what the proposed solution is, finally, so maybe my thoughts are not up to date. Please correct me if I'm wrong): * fredlima should not have been a candidate for formal reasons. But it happened and we cannot change this. Note that this is a *purely* formal argument, I don't know fredlima and he might be a very good FAmSCo member as many community members voted for him. So this is *really* nothing personal here. * I see that other candidate(s) are upset because they might have been in FAmSCo when the election would have been correct. gnokii might be the first candidate as he got the most votes of the people who didn't get into new FAmSCo, but it is hard to say how the distribution of votes would have been without fredlima. So I consider all remaining candidates. * On the other hand people who voted for fredlima might be upset too… I don't know why he was not an ambassador right now and how long he is an "informal ambassador" now. But people voted for him and this must have a reason, so completely ignoring would be a bad idea too… * So *IMHO* we need some kind of voting with all candidates for the remaining seat. This includes fredlima, as he is an ambassador now and the many votes for him are another reason to give him the opportunity to be a candidate. But other candidates should get the chance too, as one of them would be in FAmSCo now. * I dived a bit into the election rules. Is it right that we have no clear rule for such cases (well, a case that should not happen, needs no rule for handling, true…)? The vacant seat stuff seems to be viable for me. * The most important point: Find a transparent and clean solution without any tweaks (like just mentoring fredlima without any further voting, as someone proposed), this is very important for trust! * Can someone from FAmSCo inform us about the current proposed solution? I have some vague idea, but as there are many discussions, I don't want to write anything wrong or outdated info here.
We are applying method #2 of filling vacant seats[2] as mentioned in the FAmSCo election rules. There have been three (3) candidates nominated by FAmSCo members: fredlima and the following two (2) runner-ups, gnokii and mitizie. FAmSCo members are currently voting for their candidate of choice.
And… Please inform us ambassadors about the topic and all progress! I got the information trough some IRC discussion… From this discussions I know that also some other ambassadors (who are not candidates, so they are "unaffected") are unhappy with that topic.
That's everything for now. And again: Be friends and a friendly community ;)
You may track the process by viewing ticket #418[2] on the FAmSCo trac instance.
I hope I have shed some light. I'm currently connecting from an airport, If there's anything I missed or If you have any further questions I will be very happy to get back on the topic later this day. :)
Take care! -Giannis
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Candidates [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Filling_Vacant_Seats [3] https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/418
Hey Christian, apologize if we never resumed the whole issue on the list, so I'm happy to add some more things to your questions and Giannis' reply (inline)
2017-02-16 13:02 GMT+01:00 Giannis Konstantinidis <giannis@konstantinidis.cc
:
Hey Christian,
thanks for reaching out, first of all.
On February 16, 2017 at 1:10 PM Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com wrote:
Hi ambassadors,
while reading the meeting log and some more stuff (like FAmSCo ticket on vacant seat) I got more and more upset. The issue with the last election is a serious one, but some people here "discuss" on preschool level… I don't call any names here but encourage everyone to read the logs and build an own opinion. Please don't forget the four Fedora foundations, one of them is "Friends"! Fedora is a friendly and transparent community, not a kindergarten… It makes me angry, that is such an important topic.
As you can realise, this is has been a very unique situation. I don't recall having dealt with something similar in the past.
There have been a series of "mistakes" that took place:
- Fredlima may have run for FAmSCo while not belonging to any ambassadors
group on FAS, however the FAmSCo election rules[0] are not clear enough. Is is stated that "Candidates may be any member of the ambassadors group in the Fedora Accounts System". Note the use of the word "may", which suggests possibility rather than obligation.
- The elections system[1] allowed fredlima to run for FAmSCo normally,
without any restrictions system-wise.
- There has been conducted no eligibility check for candidates running for
FAmSCo.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm merely trying to provide everyone with some background information. Mistakes can happen and we should definitely make sure to prevent similar issues in the future.
On the vacant seat topic I have some thoughts (I'm still not sure what the proposed solution is, finally, so maybe my thoughts are not up to date. Please correct me if I'm wrong):
- fredlima should not have been a candidate for formal reasons. But it
happened and we cannot change this. Note that this is a *purely* formal argument, I don't know fredlima and he might be a very good FAmSCo member as many community members voted for him. So this is *really* nothing personal here.
Correct, the rules don't allow nominating non ambassadors, but it happened
and we cannot change this.
- I see that other candidate(s) are upset because they might have been in
FAmSCo when the election would have been correct. gnokii might be the first candidate as he got the most votes of the people who didn't get into new FAmSCo, but it is hard to say how the distribution of votes would have been without fredlima. So I consider all remaining candidates.
Also perfectly fine, we really don't know how votes would have been
without fredlima.
- On the other hand people who voted for fredlima might be upset too… I
don't know why he was not an ambassador right now and how long he is an "informal ambassador" now. But people voted for him and this must have a reason, so completely ignoring would be a bad idea too…
This is related to the point before, so +1.
- So *IMHO* we need some kind of voting with all candidates for the
remaining seat. This includes fredlima, as he is an ambassador now and the many votes for him are another reason to give him the opportunity to be a candidate. But other candidates should get the chance too, as one of them would be in FAmSCo now.
- I dived a bit into the election rules. Is it right that we have no clear
rule for such cases (well, a case that should not happen, needs no rule for handling, true…)? The vacant seat stuff seems to be viable for me.
Here you miss an info. We opened a Council ticket [a] to see if the right
way would have been to go forward and consider fredlima elected by the community (as you stated before). Council rejected this back to FAmSCo, asking to apply the rules we have for vacant seats [2], and advising FAmSCo to proceed with case #2:
2) If those candidates have been exhausted or FAmSCo does not consider them eligible, FAmSCo will ask Fedora community members that they think would do a good job if they would be willing to hold the open seats.
This rule says FAmSCo can nominate any community member they think would do a good job; at this point it is not more important if this member is an ambassador or not. As you said, there are many people out there who *could* make a very good job, but are not ambassadors because they never applied for it.
- The most important point: Find a transparent and clean solution without
any tweaks (like just mentoring fredlima without any further voting, as someone proposed), this is very important for trust!
The clean solution is the one we have above. Fredlima actually is getting
his mentorship by a LATAM mentor; but this is NOT related to his (re-) election in FAmSCo.
- Can someone from FAmSCo inform us about the current proposed solution? I
have some vague idea, but as there are many discussions, I don't want to write anything wrong or outdated info here.
We are applying method #2 of filling vacant seats[2] as mentioned in the FAmSCo election rules. There have been three (3) candidates nominated by FAmSCo members: fredlima and the following two (2) runner-ups, gnokii and mitizie. FAmSCo members are currently voting for their candidate of choice.
- And… Please inform us ambassadors about the topic and all progress! I
got the information trough some IRC discussion… From this discussions I know that also some other ambassadors (who are not candidates, so they are "unaffected") are unhappy with that topic.
That's everything for now. And again: Be friends and a friendly community ;)
You may track the process by viewing ticket #418[2] on the FAmSCo trac instance.
I hope I have shed some light. I'm currently connecting from an airport, If there's anything I missed or If you have any further questions I will be very happy to get back on the topic later this day. :)
Take care! -Giannis
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Candidates [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules# Filling_Vacant_Seats [3] https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/418
FAmSCo already reported back to the Council and all agreed we need to rephrase some rules clarifying them more. Not by adding more rules, we don't want this and consider the Fedora Community a friendly place which would die if we overrule it. If there is anything else we can do for clarifying the process FAmSCo is applying, please ask Thank you also for bringing this up here ;)
[a] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/89
Thank you all, that indeed helps to understand what's going on :)
Greetings, Christian
On 02/16/2017 03:16 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
Hey Christian, apologize if we never resumed the whole issue on the list, so I'm happy to add some more things to your questions and Giannis' reply (inline)
2017-02-16 13:02 GMT+01:00 Giannis Konstantinidis <giannis@konstantinidis.cc mailto:giannis@konstantinidis.cc>:
Hey Christian, thanks for reaching out, first of all.On February 16, 2017 at 1:10 PM Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@gmail.com <mailto:chrisdersch@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi ambassadors, while reading the meeting log and some more stuff (like FAmSCo ticket on vacant seat) I got more and more upset. The issue with the last election is a serious one, but some people here "discuss" on preschool level… I don't call any names here but encourage everyone to read the logs and build an own opinion. Please don't forget the four Fedora foundations, one of them is "Friends"! Fedora is a friendly and transparent community, not a kindergarten… It makes me angry, that is such an important topic.As you can realise, this is has been a very unique situation. I don't recall having dealt with something similar in the past. There have been a series of "mistakes" that took place: - Fredlima may have run for FAmSCo while not belonging to any ambassadors group on FAS, however the FAmSCo election rules[0] are not clear enough. Is is stated that "Candidates may be any member of the ambassadors group in the Fedora Accounts System". Note the use of the word "may", which suggests possibility rather than obligation. - The elections system[1] allowed fredlima to run for FAmSCo normally, without any restrictions system-wise. - There has been conducted no eligibility check for candidates running for FAmSCo. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I'm merely trying to provide everyone with some background information. Mistakes can happen and we should definitely make sure to prevent similar issues in the future.On the vacant seat topic I have some thoughts (I'm still not sure what the proposed solution is, finally, so maybe my thoughts are not up to date. Please correct me if I'm wrong): * fredlima should not have been a candidate for formal reasons. But it happened and we cannot change this. Note that this is a *purely* formal argument, I don't know fredlima and he might be a very good FAmSCo member as many community members voted for him. So this is *really* nothing personal here.Correct, the rules don't allow nominating non ambassadors, but it happened and we cannot change this.
* I see that other candidate(s) are upset because they might have been in FAmSCo when the election would have been correct. gnokii might be the first candidate as he got the most votes of the people who didn't get into new FAmSCo, but it is hard to say how the distribution of votes would have been without fredlima. So I consider all remaining candidates.Also perfectly fine, we really don't know how votes would have been without fredlima.
* On the other hand people who voted for fredlima might be upset too… I don't know why he was not an ambassador right now and how long he is an "informal ambassador" now. But people voted for him and this must have a reason, so completely ignoring would be a bad idea too…This is related to the point before, so +1.
* So *IMHO* we need some kind of voting with all candidates for the remaining seat. This includes fredlima, as he is an ambassador now and the many votes for him are another reason to give him the opportunity to be a candidate. But other candidates should get the chance too, as one of them would be in FAmSCo now. * I dived a bit into the election rules. Is it right that we have no clear rule for such cases (well, a case that should not happen, needs no rule for handling, true…)? The vacant seat stuff seems to be viable for me.Here you miss an info. We opened a Council ticket [a] to see if the right way would have been to go forward and consider fredlima elected by the community (as you stated before). Council rejected this back to FAmSCo, asking to apply the rules we have for vacant seats [2], and advising FAmSCo to proceed with case #2:
- If those candidates have been exhausted or FAmSCo does not consider
them eligible, FAmSCo will ask Fedora community members that they think would do a good job if they would be willing to hold the open seats.
This rule says FAmSCo can nominate any community member they think would do a good job; at this point it is not more important if this member is an ambassador or not. As you said, there are many people out there who *could* make a very good job, but are not ambassadors because they never applied for it.
* The most important point: Find a transparent and clean solution without any tweaks (like just mentoring fredlima without any further voting, as someone proposed), this is very important for trust!The clean solution is the one we have above. Fredlima actually is getting his mentorship by a LATAM mentor; but this is NOT related to his (re-) election in FAmSCo.
* Can someone from FAmSCo inform us about the current proposed solution? I have some vague idea, but as there are many discussions, I don't want to write anything wrong or outdated info here.We are applying method #2 of filling vacant seats[2] as mentioned in the FAmSCo election rules. There have been three (3) candidates nominated by FAmSCo members: fredlima and the following two (2) runner-ups, gnokii and mitizie. FAmSCo members are currently voting for their candidate of choice.* And… Please inform us ambassadors about the topic and all progress! I got the information trough some IRC discussion… From this discussions I know that also some other ambassadors (who are not candidates, so they are "unaffected") are unhappy with that topic. That's everything for now. And again: Be friends and a friendly community ;)You may track the process by viewing ticket #418[2] on the FAmSCo trac instance. I hope I have shed some light. I'm currently connecting from an airport, If there's anything I missed or If you have any further questions I will be very happy to get back on the topic later this day. :) Take care! -Giannis [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Candidates <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Candidates> [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/ <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Filling_Vacant_Seats <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Filling_Vacant_Seats> [3] https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/418 <https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/418>FAmSCo already reported back to the Council and all agreed we need to rephrase some rules clarifying them more. Not by adding more rules, we don't want this and consider the Fedora Community a friendly place which would die if we overrule it. If there is anything else we can do for clarifying the process FAmSCo is applying, please ask Thank you also for bringing this up here ;)
[a] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/89
-- Robert Mayr (robyduck)
Hello Robert,
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Robert Mayr wrote:
As you can realise, this is has been a very unique situation. I don't recall having dealt with something similar in the past.
well, given an essential mistake happened during the election process (a non-ambassador got elected for FAmSCo), it would make sense from my point of view to have simply a complete reelection of FAmSCo.
Regards, Robert
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:16:38AM +0100, Robert Scheck wrote:
Hello Robert,
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Robert Mayr wrote:
As you can realise, this is has been a very unique situation. I don't recall having dealt with something similar in the past.
well, given an essential mistake happened during the election process (a non-ambassador got elected for FAmSCo), it would make sense from my point of view to have simply a complete reelection of FAmSCo.
Given, that nobody (minus two or three) is really comfortable with the situation, a full re-election would be the cleanest way to escape it.
It would also be the fairest way for all candidates.
Matthias
2017-02-17 11:24 GMT+01:00 Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:16:38AM +0100, Robert Scheck wrote:
Hello Robert,
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Robert Mayr wrote:
As you can realise, this is has been a very unique situation. I don't recall having dealt with something similar in the past.
well, given an essential mistake happened during the election process (a non-ambassador got elected for FAmSCo), it would make sense from my point of view to have simply a complete reelection of FAmSCo.
Given, that nobody (minus two or three) is really comfortable with the situation, a full re-election would be the cleanest way to escape it.
It would also be the fairest way for all candidates.
Matthias
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de _______________________________________________ ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
That's your opinion, but that's not written in any of our rules and would therefore not be clean at all! You also should not speak for the whole ambassador group (minus two or three)... You can agree or not agree with FAmSCo's decision, but you cannot expect we will ever have a full consensus of 700 ambassadors. FAmSCo cannot do anything more than following the rules we actually have, and although someone says this does not apply to the vacant seats rule, we had a Council decision which recommended to apply it, and we have a clear sentence in the wiki: "If FAmSCo does not have all its seats filled due to members leaving or other lack,..." *other lack* means everything else, so that's the case here.
I think we replied to the request of clarifying the process and the outcome of our meetings and trac decisions, pointing you to all the sources we opened or discussed. We explained why we are applying these rules and cannot do anything more. Speculating about something which is not clearly written in our policies will only end up in an endless discussion. If we want to move forward and get back to business we needed to decide quickly, applying the rules we have. And that's what we did.
Regards.
On 02/17/2017 03:06 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
That's your opinion, but that's not written in any of our rules and would therefore not be clean at all! You also should not speak for the whole ambassador group (minus two or three)... You can agree or not agree with FAmSCo's decision, but you cannot expect we will ever have a full consensus of 700 ambassadors.
True. But IMHO he wanted to mention that there are some more ambassadors who are sceptical (don't know what "some" means in reality, we would have to ask). Of course with so many people there are always different opinions and it is good to have them.
FAmSCo cannot do anything more than following the rules we actually have, and although someone says this does not apply to the vacant seats rule, we had a Council decision which recommended to apply it, and we have a clear sentence in the wiki: "If FAmSCo does not have all its seats filled due to members leaving or other lack,..." *other lack* means everything else, so that's the case here.
I think we replied to the request of clarifying the process and the outcome of our meetings and trac decisions, pointing you to all the sources we opened or discussed. We explained why we are applying these rules and cannot do anything more. Speculating about something which is not clearly written in our policies will only end up in an endless discussion. If we want to move forward and get back to business we needed to decide quickly, applying the rules we have. And that's what we did.
Well, first of all the clarification came too late and only because I decided to request it. I was weary of discussions with other ambassadors where nobody really knew what is going on. That resulted in wrong assumptions and such things. It took me quite a while to get into the stuff and, as I wrote in my initial mail, there where still open questions. I got the answers quite fast here, but the discussions were already ongoing.
I see that FAmSCo is following the rules and council decision, but the rules have some scope you should be aware of and use in a wise way: * candidates are fredlima, gnokii and mitzie. They are three of the candidates @election. What about the other candidates? We do not know how the election would have gone if candidate list would have been valid. And numbers of votes were quite close to each other. I really expect an answer for that selection, people who voted for other candidates could interpret that as censorship! I really believe that everyone just wants the best for Fedora, but FAmSCo has to be much more carefully here. I got these censorship voices @community (again, no names to be discreet) and we *must* avoid that.
* It should be in the interest of FAmSCo to solve that issue in a transparent (by means of well information for community) and clean (by considering all candidates or even a new election) way. Of course there will be still unhappy people because they would have seen different results. But then you are on the safe side and can say "Hey, that's democracy". Don't get me wrong, I don't want to blame anyone here, but I feel some people are already stopping to trust in (the shiny new) FAmSCo and that would be *really* bad :(
That is all within the scope of applying the vacant seat rule, as you already know there are others who consider complete new elections. Again, I really believe that everybody wants the best for the community, but I feel that I have to draw your attention to the community voices I got. My intention is to get things clear to them. But that is also FAmSCo's task and for example some information on mailing list(s) could help the people here.
Greetings, Christian
2017-02-17 16:57 GMT+01:00 Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com:
On 02/17/2017 03:06 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
That's your opinion, but that's not written in any of our rules and would therefore not be clean at all! You also should not speak for the whole ambassador group (minus two or three)... You can agree or not agree with FAmSCo's decision, but you cannot expect we will ever have a full consensus of 700 ambassadors.
True. But IMHO he wanted to mention that there are some more ambassadors who are sceptical (don't know what "some" means in reality, we would have to ask). Of course with so many people there are always different opinions and it is good to have them.
Can you stop picking out and quoting comments without the context? If you speak about censorship, that's censorship. He spoke about "nobody", and you now are saying a "few more". So, what are we talking about?
FAmSCo cannot do anything more than following the rules we actually have, and although someone says this does not apply to the vacant seats rule, we had a Council decision which recommended to apply it, and we have a clear sentence in the wiki: "If FAmSCo does not have all its seats filled due to members leaving or other lack,..." *other lack* means everything else, so that's the case here.
I think we replied to the request of clarifying the process and the outcome of our meetings and trac decisions, pointing you to all the sources we opened or discussed. We explained why we are applying these rules and cannot do anything more. Speculating about something which is not clearly written in our policies will only end up in an endless discussion. If we want to move forward and get back to business we needed to decide quickly, applying the rules we have. And that's what we did.
Well, first of all the clarification came too late and only because I decided to request it. I was weary of discussions with other ambassadors where nobody really knew what is going on. That resulted in wrong assumptions and such things. It took me quite a while to get into the stuff and, as I wrote in my initial mail, there where still open questions. I got the answers quite fast here, but the discussions were already ongoing.
I see that FAmSCo is following the rules and council decision, but the rules have some scope you should be aware of and use in a wise way:
We use them in a wise way.
- candidates are fredlima, gnokii and mitzie. They are three of the
candidates @election. What about the other candidates? We do not know how the election would have gone if candidate list would have been valid. And numbers of votes were quite close to each other. I really expect an answer for that selection, people who voted for other candidates could interpret that as censorship! I really believe that everyone just wants the best for Fedora, but FAmSCo has to be much more carefully here. I got these censorship voices @community (again, no names to be discreet) and we *must* avoid that.
Please read the rule before you write anything. FAmSCo at this point is not related to nominations. FAmSCo can nominate "whoever they think would do a good job". My candidate was not nominated, but unfortunately didn't reply and therefore didn't get nominated by me. You are speaking about bad faith, and I cannot accept that at all!!! I have been attacked also privately (and will also not say by whom), but if you think I can do anything alone (I'm just one out of 7 FAmSCo members, nothing less and nothing more, keep that in mind) or am in bad faith against anyone, just tell me and I will step down. I don't care about that, I care just about trying to have a strong ambassador group again.
- It should be in the interest of FAmSCo to solve that issue in a
transparent (by means of well information for community) and clean (by considering all candidates or even a new election) way. Of course there will be still unhappy people because they would have seen different results. But then you are on the safe side and can say "Hey, that's democracy". Don't get me wrong, I don't want to blame anyone here, but I feel some people are already stopping to trust in (the shiny new) FAmSCo and that would be *really* bad :(
That is all within the scope of applying the vacant seat rule, as you already know there are others who consider complete new elections. Again, I really believe that everybody wants the best for the community, but I feel that I have to draw your attention to the community voices I got. My intention is to get things clear to them. But that is also FAmSCo's task and for example some information on mailing list(s) could help the people here.
Greetings, Christian
We solved this in the most transparent way, keeping discussions and tickets open and bringing this even up to the Council. I really cannot understand what do you mean by a transparent behavior... If you don't mind, I'd like to get back to business and try to move on, instead of loosing 2 months by discussing this topic to death and loose time for nothing.
Thank you.
Hi again,
first of all: I don't want to attack anybody personal here. I'm very sorry if you, Robert, or anybody else, feels attacked. This is really not my intention! I'm trying to explain my impression of the whole thing and some reactions I got or recognized @community.
On 02/17/2017 09:04 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
2017-02-17 16:57 GMT+01:00 Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@gmail.com mailto:chrisdersch@gmail.com>:
On 02/17/2017 03:06 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:That's your opinion, but that's not written in any of our rules and would therefore not be clean at all! You also should not speak for the whole ambassador group (minus two or three)... You can agree or not agree with FAmSCo's decision, but you cannot expect we will ever have a full consensus of 700 ambassadors.True. But IMHO he wanted to mention that there are some more ambassadors who are sceptical (don't know what "some" means in reality, we would have to ask). Of course with so many people there are always different opinions and it is good to have them.Can you stop picking out and quoting comments without the context? If you speak about censorship, that's censorship. He spoke about "nobody", and you now are saying a "few more". So, what are we talking about?
Censorship is not my own word here. I wanted to show you how some people think about that and thus used the word they used. (And I already wrote that I have to number for "some" and wrote that is it an impression)
FAmSCo cannot do anything more than following the rules we actually have, and although someone says this does not apply to the vacant seats rule, we had a Council decision which recommended to apply it, and we have a clear sentence in the wiki: "If FAmSCo does not have all its seats filled due to members leaving or other lack,..." *other lack* means everything else, so that's the case here. I think we replied to the request of clarifying the process and the outcome of our meetings and trac decisions, pointing you to all the sources we opened or discussed. We explained why we are applying these rules and cannot do anything more. Speculating about something which is not clearly written in our policies will only end up in an endless discussion. If we want to move forward and get back to business we needed to decide quickly, applying the rules we have. And that's what we did.Well, first of all the clarification came too late and only because I decided to request it. I was weary of discussions with other ambassadors where nobody really knew what is going on. That resulted in wrong assumptions and such things. It took me quite a while to get into the stuff and, as I wrote in my initial mail, there where still open questions. I got the answers quite fast here, but the discussions were already ongoing. I see that FAmSCo is following the rules and council decision, but the rules have some scope you should be aware of and use in a wise way:We use them in a wise way.
* candidates are fredlima, gnokii and mitzie. They are three of the candidates @election. What about the other candidates? We do not know how the election would have gone if candidate list would have been valid. And numbers of votes were quite close to each other. I really expect an answer for that selection, people who voted for other candidates could interpret that as censorship! I really believe that everyone just wants the best for Fedora, but FAmSCo has to be much more carefully here. I got these censorship voices @community (again, no names to be discreet) and we *must* avoid that.Please read the rule before you write anything. FAmSCo at this point is not related to nominations. FAmSCo can nominate "whoever they think would do a good job". My candidate was not nominated, but unfortunately didn't reply and therefore didn't get nominated by me. You are speaking about bad faith, and I cannot accept that at all!!!
Again, here I'm reporting about some opinions I got (I thought I already mentioned that in my previous mail?). But to be honest it was hard for to me understand the selection here, especially in the beginning (and still have no 100% awareness here). I believe others don't understand that too. Then I indeed read the rules and found that it is hard to apply them as mentioned somewhere in a previous mail. People who voted for the other candidates feel upset now as their candidates are not considered. "Bad faith" is also in this context. That is why I think the community needs some kind of explanation (short, not long tickets or mails) to be able to get an idea of what is going on here. I want to clear up the situation, to avoid things like bad faith, nothing else.
I have been attacked also privately (and will also not say by whom), but if you think I can do anything alone (I'm just one out of 7 FAmSCo members, nothing less and nothing more, keep that in mind) or am in bad faith against anyone, just tell me and I will step down. I don't care about that, I care just about trying to have a strong ambassador group again.
I meant whole FAmSCo in my mail, maybe I should have written this more clear. As I wrote I believe that everyone wants the best for Fedora. For "bad faith" see above.
* It should be in the interest of FAmSCo to solve that issue in a transparent (by means of well information for community) and clean (by considering all candidates or even a new election) way. Of course there will be still unhappy people because they would have seen different results. But then you are on the safe side and can say "Hey, that's democracy". Don't get me wrong, I don't want to blame anyone here, but I feel some people are already stopping to trust in (the shiny new) FAmSCo and that would be *really* bad :( That is all within the scope of applying the vacant seat rule, as you already know there are others who consider complete new elections. Again, I really believe that everybody wants the best for the community, but I feel that I have to draw your attention to the community voices I got. My intention is to get things clear to them. But that is also FAmSCo's task and for example some information on mailing list(s) could help the people here. Greetings, ChristianWe solved this in the most transparent way, keeping discussions and tickets open and bringing this even up to the Council. I really cannot understand what do you mean by a transparent behavior...
Maybe transparent is not the best word here as everything is open. What I mean: There are discussions for weeks now, tickets are long, meeting logs are long. It took me hours to really understand what is going on. People get snippets of the situation and build their opinion without a complete picture of the situation. OK, that always happens everyday, everywhere. But we can lower that effect by providing information that is short enough to read within some minutes and that is easier to get (in sense of understandaing) IMHO it would be nice if FAmSCo writes short reports about the situation in general and the progress to the ambassadors mailing list (or is there a better place?). This would really help to get more objective opinions as it is easier to get the situation. Of course there always will be other opinions, but that's not a result of missing (in sense of people did not read the whole stuff) information anymore and thus fine and especially a different case.
Greetings, Christian
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:
Maybe transparent is not the best word here as everything is open. What I mean: There are discussions for weeks now, tickets are long, meeting logs are long. It took me hours to really understand what is going on. People get snippets of the situation and build their opinion without a complete picture of the situation. OK, that always happens everyday, everywhere. But we can lower that effect by providing information that is short enough to read within some minutes and that is easier to get (in sense of understandaing) IMHO it would be nice if FAmSCo writes short reports about the situation in general and the progress to the ambassadors mailing list (or is there a better place?). This would really help to get more objective opinions as it is easier to get the situation. Of course there always will be other opinions, but that's not a result of missing (in sense of people did not read the whole stuff) information anymore and thus fine and especially a different case.
Greetings,
Christian
Hello Christian and everyone else in the list,
I understand that you think FAmSCo should write some kind of report or resume with this discussion and its main points. Now, I think, and it's just an idea... what about writing post in the Community Blog or Fedora People or wherever we agree is the best place explaining the main points like situation, background, decisions taken (and why) and outcome? I'm thinking of something short and clear, explaining what happened and how is going to be resolved.
What do you think about it? Kind regards, Sylvia
Il 18/feb/2017 03:31 PM, "Sylvia" bhkohane@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:
Maybe transparent is not the best word here as everything is open. What I mean: There are discussions for weeks now, tickets are long, meeting logs are long. It took me hours to really understand what is going on. People get snippets of the situation and build their opinion without a complete picture of the situation. OK, that always happens everyday, everywhere. But we can lower that effect by providing information that is short enough to read within some minutes and that is easier to get (in sense of understandaing) IMHO it would be nice if FAmSCo writes short reports about the situation in general and the progress to the ambassadors mailing list (or is there a better place?). This would really help to get more objective opinions as it is easier to get the situation. Of course there always will be other opinions, but that's not a result of missing (in sense of people did not read the whole stuff) information anymore and thus fine and especially a different case.
Greetings, Christian
_______________________________________________
Hello Christian and everyone else in the list,
I understand that you think FAmSCo should write some kind of report or resume with this discussion and its main points. Now, I think, and it's just an idea... what about writing post in the Community Blog or Fedora People or wherever we agree is the best place explaining the main points like situation, background, decisions taken (and why) and outcome? I'm thinking of something short and clear, explaining what happened and how is going to be resolved.
What do you think about it? Kind regards, Sylvia
_______________________________________________ ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
The CommBlog is thought for all contributors, and it is even public to the whole world. I think that's not what we want. The Mailing List is fine IMHO, although everyone can read the minutes. We can probably add the main topics to the minutes when sending them out; I'm not in favour of writing even resumes of the meetings. Robert
On Sat, 2017-02-18 at 16:13 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
Il 18/feb/2017 03:31 PM, "Sylvia" bhkohane@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:
Maybe transparent is not the best word here as everything is open. What I mean: There are discussions for weeks now, tickets are long, meeting logs are long. It took me hours to really understand what is going on. People get snippets of the situation and build their opinion without a complete picture of the situation. OK, that always happens everyday, everywhere. But we can lower that effect by providing information that is short enough to read within some minutes and that is easier to get (in sense of understandaing) IMHO it would be nice if FAmSCo writes short reports about the situation in general and the progress to the ambassadors mailing list (or is there a better place?). This would really help to get more objective opinions as it is easier to get the situation. Of course there always will be other opinions, but that's not a result of missing (in sense of people did not read the whole stuff) information anymore and thus fine and especially a different case.
Greetings,
Christian
Hello Christian and everyone else in the list,
I understand that you think FAmSCo should write some kind of report or resume with this discussion and its main points. Now, I think, and it's just an idea... what about writing post in the Community Blog or Fedora People or wherever we agree is the best place explaining the main points like situation, background, decisions taken (and why) and outcome? I'm thinking of something short and clear, explaining what happened and how is going to be resolved.
What do you think about it? Kind regards, Sylvia
ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject .org The CommBlog is thought for all contributors, and it is even public to the whole world. I think that's not what we want. The Mailing List is fine IMHO, although everyone can read the minutes. We can probably add the main topics to the minutes when sending them out; I'm not in favour of writing even resumes of the meetings.Robert
Me neither. But if people is going to think that we are hiding something... it may worth the effort. I don't know. I'm off this discussion until next meeting. I already voted anyway.
Kind regards, Sylvia
On 02/18/2017 05:30 PM, Sylvia wrote:
On Sat, 2017-02-18 at 16:13 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
Il 18/feb/2017 03:31 PM, "Sylvia" <bhkohane@gmail.com mailto:bhkohane@gmail.com> ha scritto:
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:Maybe transparent is not the best word here as everything is open. What I mean: There are discussions for weeks now, tickets are long, meeting logs are long. It took me hours to really understand what is going on. People get snippets of the situation and build their opinion without a complete picture of the situation. OK, that always happens everyday, everywhere. But we can lower that effect by providing information that is short enough to read within some minutes and that is easier to get (in sense of understandaing) IMHO it would be nice if FAmSCo writes short reports about the situation in general and the progress to the ambassadors mailing list (or is there a better place?). This would really help to get more objective opinions as it is easier to get the situation. Of course there always will be other opinions, but that's not a result of missing (in sense of people did not read the whole stuff) information anymore and thus fine and especially a different case. Greetings, Christian _______________________________________________Hello Christian and everyone else in the list, I understand that you think FAmSCo should write some kind of report or resume with this discussion and its main points. Now, I think, and it's just an idea... what about writing post in the Community Blog or Fedora People or wherever we agree is the best place explaining the main points like situation, background, decisions taken (and why) and outcome? I'm thinking of something short and clear, explaining what happened and how is going to be resolved. What do you think about it? Kind regards, Sylvia _______________________________________________ ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>The CommBlog is thought for all contributors, and it is even public to the whole world. I think that's not what we want. The Mailing List is fine IMHO, although everyone can read the minutes. We can probably add the main topics to the minutes when sending them out; I'm not in favour of writing even resumes of the meetings. Robert _______________________________________________
Me neither. But if people is going to think that we are hiding something... it may worth the effort. I don't know. I'm off this discussion until next meeting. I already voted anyway.
Thanks for your comment :) That's exactly what I thought too. Mailing list is required as information for all ambassadors, with something more public it would be shown that there is not only nothing hidden but also that community is actively informed about the stuff. But… the decision is up to FAmSCo, I wrote all my thoughts and apprehensions here. Greetings, Christian
It's the voting happening now? With all the discussion, I'm no sure. And other question is: All Ambassadors are allowed to vote? Or only FAMsCO members are supposed to vote?
Br,
2017-02-18 14:42 GMT-03:00 Christian Dersch chrisdersch@gmail.com:
On 02/18/2017 05:30 PM, Sylvia wrote:
On Sat, 2017-02-18 at 16:13 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
Il 18/feb/2017 03:31 PM, "Sylvia" bhkohane@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 22:59 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:
Maybe transparent is not the best word here as everything is open. What I mean: There are discussions for weeks now, tickets are long, meeting logs are long. It took me hours to really understand what is going on. People get snippets of the situation and build their opinion without a complete picture of the situation. OK, that always happens everyday, everywhere. But we can lower that effect by providing information that is short enough to read within some minutes and that is easier to get (in sense of understandaing) IMHO it would be nice if FAmSCo writes short reports about the situation in general and the progress to the ambassadors mailing list (or is there a better place?). This would really help to get more objective opinions as it is easier to get the situation. Of course there always will be other opinions, but that's not a result of missing (in sense of people did not read the whole stuff) information anymore and thus fine and especially a different case.
Greetings, Christian
Hello Christian and everyone else in the list, I understand that you think FAmSCo should write some kind of report or resume with this discussion and its main points. Now, I think, and it's just an idea... what about writing post in the Community Blog or Fedora People or wherever we agree is the best place explaining the main points like situation, background, decisions taken (and why) and outcome? I'm thinking of something short and clear, explaining what happened and how is going to be resolved. What do you think about it? Kind regards, Sylvia _______________________________________________ ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
The CommBlog is thought for all contributors, and it is even public to the whole world. I think that's not what we want. The Mailing List is fine IMHO, although everyone can read the minutes. We can probably add the main topics to the minutes when sending them out; I'm not in favour of writing even resumes of the meetings. Robert
Me neither. But if people is going to think that we are hiding something... it may worth the effort. I don't know. I'm off this discussion until next meeting. I already voted anyway.
Thanks for your comment :) That's exactly what I thought too. Mailing list is required as information for all ambassadors, with something more public it would be shown that there is not only nothing hidden but also that community is actively informed about the stuff. But… the decision is up to FAmSCo, I wrote all my thoughts and apprehensions here. Greetings, Christian
ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
* Eduard Lucena [18/02/2017 17:44] :
It's the voting happening now? With all the discussion, I'm no sure. And other question is: All Ambassadors are allowed to vote? Or only FAMsCO members are supposed to vote?
FAmSCo members are currently voting to fill the vacant seat.
Emmanuel
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
Given, that nobody (minus two or three) is really comfortable with the situation, a full re-election would be the cleanest way to escape it.
Maybe, but it's also a long, slow process. The seat in question is *already* one of those which is up for re-election after F26, and we're well on our way to that. I'd rather get beyond the election and get things started.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
Given, that nobody (minus two or three) is really comfortable with the situation, a full re-election would be the cleanest way to escape it.
Maybe, but it's also a long, slow process. The seat in question is *already* one of those which is up for re-election after F26, and we're well on our way to that. I'd rather get beyond the election and get things started.
I agree. Move beyond this as soon as possible. Since it wasn't noticed until after the election I don't really think viewing it as water under the bridge and moving on is bad. We can clean up process and descriptions and other small matters before the next election.
John
2017-02-17 11:16 GMT+01:00 Robert Scheck robert@fedoraproject.org:
Hello Robert,
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Robert Mayr wrote:
As you can realise, this is has been a very unique situation. I don't recall having dealt with something similar in the past.
well, given an essential mistake happened during the election process (a non-ambassador got elected for FAmSCo), it would make sense from my point of view to have simply a complete reelection of FAmSCo.
Regards, Robert
ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
I got your point, but you are quoting the wrong person. I didn't write this.
Am 17.02.2017 um 11:16 schrieb Robert Scheck:
well, given an essential mistake happened during the election process (a non-ambassador got elected for FAmSCo), it would make sense from my point of view to have simply a complete reelection of FAmSCo.
+1 for complete re-election!
cu Joerg Simon
Am 20.02.2017 um 10:02 schrieb Joerg Simon:
+1 for complete re-election!
i was asked why
- the rules were not made to deal with this kind of mistake
- we have multiple compromises around this issue on the table - but no matter how the decission turns out, it will leave one or the other key-contributor very unhappy and unsatisfied
- the current decission-making takes several weeks now / seems to stuck and consumes ressources which should invested for other improvements
- btw. if this takes much longer - the next elections will come up soon ;)
cu Joerg
Il 20/feb/2017 06:27 PM, "Joerg Simon" jsimon@fedoraproject.org ha scritto:
Am 20.02.2017 um 10:02 schrieb Joerg Simon:
+1 for complete re-election!
i was asked why
- the rules were not made to deal with this kind of mistake
OK you wrote them, but they say for "leaving or other lack". Other lack is the whole universe of situations that may happen.
- we have multiple compromises around this issue on the table - but no matter how the decission turns out, it will leave one or the other key-contributor very unhappy and unsatisfied
Not if you think we are just applying the rules we have. It's not a compromise.
- the current decission-making takes several weeks now / seems to stuck and consumes ressources which should invested for other improvements
That's exactly the point, although the process never got stuck and we have also a decision now. Nevertheless this time could have been used for moving forward, and personally I would have seen that as the best solution. If we now even want to do re-elections we will loose another month at least.
- btw. if this takes much longer - the next elections will come up soon ;)
Remember we are talking about a seat which will expire just after F26 GA. Not years.
Regards. Robert
cu Joerg
-- Joerg (kital) Simon jsimon@fedoraproject.org https://about.me/joerg.simon Key Fingerprint: 3691 0989 2DCA 58A2 8D1F 2CAC C823 558E 5B5B 5688
Call trans opt: received. 2-19-98 13:24:18 REC:Loc
Trace program: running
wake up, Neo... the matrix has you follow the white rabbit.
knock, knock, Neo.
(`. ,-, ` `. ,;' / `. ,'/ .' `. X /.' .-;--''--.._` ` ( .' / ` , ` ' Q ' , , `._ \ ,.| ' `-.;_' : . ` ; ` ` --,.._; ' ` , ) .' `._ , ' /_ ; ,''-,;' ``- ``-..__``--`
_______________________________________________ ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Am 20.02.2017 um 21:08 schrieb Robert Mayr:
Il 20/feb/2017 06:27 PM, "Joerg Simon" jsimon@fedoraproject.org ha scritto:
Am 20.02.2017 um 10:02 schrieb Joerg Simon:
+1 for complete re-election!
- we have multiple compromises around this issue on the table - but no
matter how the decission turns out, it will leave one or the other key-contributor very unhappy and unsatisfied
Not if you think we are just applying the rules we have. It's not a compromise.
- the current decission-making takes several weeks now / seems to stuck
and consumes ressources which should invested for other improvements
That's exactly the point, although the process never got stuck and we have also a decision now. Nevertheless this time could have been used for moving forward, and personally I would have seen that as the best solution. If we now even want to do re-elections we will loose another month at least.
Looking at the whole case today - fast re-elections with the same candidates as soon as the issue came up, would have been my personal preference ... followed by the option of moving on with one seat left. But i admit at the time nobody could really know that there are so many strong opinions which would have made this the best options.
The strong opinions i see - one tries to safe his seat, the other tries to claim a seat, others try to protect the rules and then there are some who try to protect their interest by getting their quorum in FAmSCo by promoting the candidate that would vote along :S
I decided to stay out of Fedora governance years ago and have absolutely no saying in this and i should not have commented on it in the first place ;)
Robert you know, talk is cheap ... Fedora is a meritocracy and not a democracy and because you are one of the most active contributors who not just talks and claims, i go along with your decision and the people who do the "real" work.
thanks for taking care and trying your best!
Joerg
While reading all mails I got some more questions and comments:
On 02/16/2017 01:02 PM, Giannis Konstantinidis wrote:
- Can someone from FAmSCo inform us about the current proposed
solution? I have some vague idea, but as there are many discussions, I don't want to write anything wrong or outdated info here.
We are applying method #2 of filling vacant seats[2] as mentioned in the FAmSCo election rules. There have been three (3) candidates nominated by FAmSCo members: fredlima and the following two (2) runner-ups, gnokii and mitizie. FAmSCo members are currently voting for their candidate of choice.
So Council told FAmSCo to do so? I'd prefer a voting with all remaining candidates from last election and fredlima (as we do not know who would have the most votes every candidate should get the opportunity). And: Wouldn't a voting with all people who were allowed to vote @elections be better?
(In theory as we do not know the real distribution of votes without fredlima, a complete new election would be the cleanest solution *IMHO*, but thats something like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut for me)
- And… Please inform us ambassadors about the topic and all progress!
I got the information trough some IRC discussion… From this discussions I know that also some other ambassadors (who are not candidates, so they are "unaffected") are unhappy with that topic.
That's everything for now. And again: Be friends and a friendly community ;)
You may track the process by viewing ticket #418[2] on the FAmSCo trac instance.
I'm following that now. Btw. as fedorahosted will be shut down soon: When will the switch to pagure happen?
Greetings, Christian
Hello Christian, I may be able to clarify a bit the mess.* Frederico Lima (fredlima) wasn't an ambassador because he was pinging the Brazilian mentor who seems to be inactive or out of reach. However, Brazil is inside the LATAM region so he could ping any other mentor. The reasons why he didn't are out of my reach and not in discussion right now.* I'm also angry about this topic and wholeheartedly agree with you, Christian. But I can't figure out a way to put some order on the present situation.* fredlima has been contributing a lot to the project, mainly through translations. In all honesty, I didn't know he wasn't an ambassador and probably many people who voted for him didn't know either. * The solution proposed was the point #2 in the seat rules that states that FAmSCo if (runner-up) candidates have been exhausted or FAmSCo does not consider them eligible, it will ask Fedora community members that they think would do a good job and would be willing to hold the open seats. * According to this rule, and giving no one else have other proposals, the candidates are Mitzie, Fredlima & Gnokii. And we have to vote for one of them on this ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/418 * In my very personal opinion, this issue should be voted by all ambassadors. But the rules state that is FAmSCo that will vote to elect the vacant seat. Or so I understand from the mentioned rules.* FAmSCo mean to clear and modify (wherever is needed) the rules to avoid future problems. Hope now is clearer for you and the rest of ambassadors who are trying to entangle the mess.
Kind regards,Sylvia
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 12:10 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote:
Hi ambassadors,
while reading the meeting log and some more stuff (like FAmSCo ticket on vacant seat) I got more and more upset. The issue with the last election is a serious one, but some people here "discuss" on preschool level… I don't call any names here but encourage everyone to read the logs and build an own opinion. Please don't forget the four Fedora foundations, one of them is "Friends"! Fedora is a friendly and transparent community, not a kindergarten… It makes me angry, that is such an important topic.
On the vacant seat topic I have some thoughts (I'm still not sure what the proposed solution is, finally, so maybe my thoughts are not up to date. Please correct me if I'm wrong):
* fredlima should not have been a candidate for formal reasons. But it happened and we cannot change this. Note that this is a *purely* formal argument, I don't know fredlima and he might be a very good FAmSCo member as many community members voted for him. So this is *really* nothing personal here.
* I see that other candidate(s) are upset because they might have been in FAmSCo when the election would have been correct. gnokii might be the first candidate as he got the most votes of the people who didn't get into new FAmSCo, but it is hard to say how the distribution of votes would have been without fredlima. So I consider all remaining candidates.
* On the other hand people who voted for fredlima might be upset too… I don't know why he was not an ambassador right now and how long he is an "informal ambassador" now. But people voted for him and this must have a reason, so completely ignoring would be a bad idea too…
* So *IMHO* we need some kind of voting with all candidates for the remaining seat. This includes fredlima, as he is an ambassador now and the many votes for him are another reason to give him the opportunity to be a candidate. But other candidates should get the chance too, as one of them would be in FAmSCo now.
* I dived a bit into the election rules. Is it right that we have no clear rule for such cases (well, a case that should not happen, needs no rule for handling, true…)? The vacant seat stuff seems to be viable for me.
* The most important point: Find a transparent and clean solution without any tweaks (like just mentoring fredlima without any further voting, as someone proposed), this is very important for trust!
* Can someone from FAmSCo inform us about the current proposed solution? I have some vague idea, but as there are many discussions, I don't want to write anything wrong or outdated info here.
* And… Please inform us ambassadors about the topic and all progress! I got the information trough some IRC discussion… From this discussions I know that also some other ambassadors (who are not candidates, so they are "unaffected") are unhappy with that topic.
That's everything for now. And again: Be friends and a friendly community ;)
For fredlima: As you are an ambassador now, it would be nice if you introduce yourself here :)
Greetings,
Christian
On 02/15/2017 10:13 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
All FAmSCo members attended the meeting today, please read the minutes if you like to know more: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-02- 15/famsco.2017-02-15-15.02.html
--
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
_______________________________________________ ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproje ct.org
ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave@lists.fedoraproject .org
Having come from another community that suffered through some drama filled issues I would like to offer one piece of advice.
--- Mistakes are made all the time. One should not read in to them some specific intent; they are mistakes.
As a community it is best to find a positive way forward. Choose one and move forward. After that the issue needs to be put to rest.
Charles
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
charles profitt -
Christian Dersch -
Eduard Lucena -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Giannis Konstantinidis -
inode0 -
Joerg Simon -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Runge -
Robert Mayr -
Robert Scheck -
Sylvia