On Wednesday, 13 June 2012, inode0 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Caius Chanace <me@kaio.net> wrote:
> On 12/06/12 16:00, Arif Tri Waluyo wrote:
>>
>> Additionally: Nick Bebout and Robert 'Bob' Jensen have tied for the
>> remaining seat; a runoff election will be held to determine the
>> remaining seat, beginning Tuesday, June 12, and ending Tuesday, June
>> 19.
>
>
> Very interesting that a tie was reached.
>
> As Nick Bebout has won on two elections, has election guidelines mentioned
> about this situation? Just wondering if it had been a common situation for
> this in past? (My personal thought was see if an extra FAmSCo candidate from
> APAC can join. :P)
I don't follow here. Nick was elected to FAmSCo. That has no bearing
on his being elected to any other governance body and never has had
any bearing on it.
While this topic comes up every once in a while because some people
don't like others sitting on multiple governance bodies one way to
solve that problem is to run yourself.
I would encourage all ambassadors to not be overly focused on regional
representation. It is nice to have steering committee members from all
regions but I don't view it as critical. Every single FAmSCo member
should work hard for ALL ambassadors.
John
--
ambassadors mailing list
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
I don't follow there, too.
Running yourself won't solve the problem. There is no problem for running in multiple governance bodies elections, especially the voting periods are very close and the results are released at once. This increases the opportunity to be elected.
However, if a person is elected in more than one governance bodies, why cannot he/she consider choosing either of the positions for the good of more opportunity to others? Isn't great to get more Fedorans gaining skills and experiences of leadership?
Given that there were enough candidates in the elections, saying something similar to "lack of people interested to take responsibility contributing in Fedora" for justifying multi appointment is just inaccurate to the situation. Even everyone was running for elections, it won't eliminate the case of someone winning more than one elections.
Besides, although board and FAmSCo had not influencing each others' decisions substantially in past, the structure of Board and FAmSCo is more like vertical connection. When powers and responsibilities are superset and subset relationship, why taking 2 spaces rather than introducing more views and thoughts in either governance bodies?
The focus on regional representation was not my main point here. I am personally happy to have anyone from any regions, just not the same person in Board and FAmSCo, or Board and FESCo. There are people ran for elections who are willing to share the work.
I don't follow there, too.
Regards,
Kaio
--
Sent from mobile.