[Ambassadors] Ambassadors list vs. FAmSCo list

[inode0]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>
> Am Sonntag, den 18.12.2011, 18:54 -0600 schrieb inode0:
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert
>> >
>> >     1. Keep FAmSCo list public, but create a famsco-private list. This
>> >        is just like the board.
>> >     2. Make FAmSCo list private again and use the ambassadors list for
>> >        all public FAmSCo discussions. This is what FESCO does.
>> >
>> > At this point I am not sure which proposal is better. The second one
>> > will make FAmSCo members use ambassadors list more often and improve
>> > transparency and participation, but on the other hand it will also
>> > increase the noise level and make things more.
>> >
>> > What is better? Please state your opinions!
>>
>> Does there really need to be a private list? Can't you just forward
>> the trac email to the 7 members of FAmSCo?
>
> Sure, for tickets that would work, too. Nevertheless we need one private
> list to discuss sensible topics.

Why do you need one for sensitive issues? There isn't one now and as I
recall when it was removed FAmSCo thought there were so few sensitive
subjects that those could just be handled with regular email among
FAmSCo members. Has that changed or been found to be too difficult to
do?

>> The board never discusses anything on their public list so please do
>> not model FAmSCo after the board. If your two proposed choices are the
>> only options I would vote for setting things up like FESCo.
>
> I agree. The board's work does affect many different areas of Fedora (or
> not), therefor it is hard to pick the right mailing list. FAmSCo on the
> other hand deals only with the ambassadors and we could easily move
> everything to ambassadors list.

In defense of the board, which I'm not prone to offer very often, the
fact that the board's public mailing list is really public makes
having board discussions on it difficult as others jump in and scream
and yell. I wouldn't be surprised if you encountered a fair bit of
that if you tried to use this list for FAmSCo discussions too. Using
the current semi-public FAmSCo list for your discussions I think has a
better chance to be successful as only FAmSCo members have voice
there.

>> I do have reservations about both choices.
>
> Then please propose a 3rd one. ;)

I thought I did although I did it sheepishly. Solve the current
problem by forwarding trac tickets to FAmSCo members directly and
leave the lists alone.

>> In my opinion the FESCo has
>> very open, active, and substantive regular public meetings. Without
>> those occurring with FAmSCo I'm not sure the same underlying structure
>> will be effective. FESCo maintains a lot of transparency due to their
>> public meetings.
>
> FAmSCo meetings are open and public, too. Regular and active not so
> much, but we are trying to change this and everybody is invited to join
> our meeting next Wednesday at 22:00 UTC.

I appreciate that you are trying to do this but the current discussion
was prefaced with the idea that the role of regular IRC meetings would
decline and be replaced with more discussion via mail. At least that
is the sense of direction I've been getting from this and earlier
discussions about scheduling FAmSCo meetings.

John