Hi,<br><br>For the new guidelines I think - I would like to support partially the first option, but in most views I think option 3 has better advantages. Longer periods can mean stability, and less <span lang="en"><span>fluctuation in learning curve - and more trust between leaders, and community. <br>
<br>Zoltan<br></span></span>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/4/13 Igor Pires Soares <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:igorsoares@gmail.com" target="_blank">igorsoares@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Em Qui, 2012-04-12 às 19:55 +0200, Christoph Wickert escreveu:<br>
<div><div>> I hope I haven't missed an option and managed to outline them fair and<br>
> unbiased. Please let me know if not.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Now let me express my view: Until today I was in favor of option 1, but<br>
> while writing this mail and explaining the advantages and downsides, I<br>
> have changed my mind. I am no longer convinced that option 1 is the<br>
> only way to go. Option 3 for example seems to have a lot of advantages.<br>
><br>
> However I feel there is one *very* important point we complete missed in<br>
> the meeting yesterday: The fact that we changed the group of eligible<br>
> voters. In the past only ambassadors were allowed to vote. Now<br>
> everybody who signed the Contributor License Agreement and is member of<br>
> at least one other group can vote. I feel this is a very important<br>
> change:<br>
> * The ambassadors represent Fedora to the world and all Fedora<br>
> members should be allowed to elect their representatives. The<br>
> new FAmSCo will have a much broader base.<br>
> * We want to have more ambassadors involved in other projects. By<br>
> opening FAmSCo for more voters, we will help candidates who<br>
> earned reputation in other projects.<br>
> * Having these people on FAmSCo is a win for the ambassadors as<br>
> they can improve coordination with other groups.<br>
><br>
> This alone IHMO justifies an election ASAP, even if FAmSCo members then<br>
> do not serve the 12 month term they were elected for. I therefor prefer<br>
> option 2. It eliminates the problems of option 1 but offers nearly the<br>
> same advantages as option 3. All FAmSCo members need to run again and<br>
> will have equal chances. In addition to that, I hope that having the<br>
> new election in outside of the old schedule in F18 will raise awareness<br>
> for the new guidelines and their possibilities.<br>
><br>
> Please let me know if I missed an option or any advantages or downsides.<br>
> Not only that: Let me know what you think. If possible, we should reach<br>
> a consensus before the next IRC meeting as we have a lot of other work<br>
> to do.<br>
<br>
</div></div>My first option would be option #1 since we reached a majority when<br>
voting for the new guidelines but since some people weren't in the<br>
meeting I realize that this can be unfair.<br>
<br>
That said, I prefer option #3 because we were elected to a full year<br>
term and IMHO the ideal solution involves not to change the rules while<br>
the game is being played, neither to touch an election previously made.<br>
<br>
I know that this would delay the transition by one release, but things<br>
would run smoother that way.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<span><font color="#888888">--<br>
Igor Pires Soares<br>
Fedora Ambassador (Brazil) - Member of FAmSCo<br>
Fedora I18N/L10N QA<br>
<a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor" target="_blank">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor</a><br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
famsco mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:famsco@lists.fedoraproject.org" target="_blank">famsco@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/famsco" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/famsco</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>PGP: 06853DF7<br>