On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Mani A <a.mani.cms@gmail.com> wrote:
Hash: SHA1

Quality of Ambassadors:

I think the best way to measure it is through a simple credit system.

1. a.)  Ambassador /prospective ambassador reads *important* article
      (Only some articles may be eligible for credit)
   b.) Prospective ambassador answers related multiple choice questions
   c.) If a minimum score of 90% is not attained, then the candidate
goes through the whole process again.

On successful completion, candidate gets 1 credit or some credit.

2.  a.) Ambassador/prospective ambassador contributes X no of commits
to a Fedora project.

We know plenty of inefficient code metrics. Based on a less
inefficient one we give some credit to the candidate.

Only exceptionally hard working programmers should be able to become
ambassadors based on their code contribution alone.

3.   Ambassador /prospective ambassador writes a article in

This is getting long.
Shall I make a wiki page for the evaluation system?


A. Mani

A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc

Ok, I have a problem with a ranking or evaluation system.  It's one thing to have a mentee period, because I think we can all agree that the current program lacks an effective onboarding strategy for getting want-to-be Ambassadors involved.

The kind of system proposed above reminds me of why I quit playing World of Warcraft.  For those of you who don't play Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) I apologize in advance if the analogy doesn't make sense.  I was in a pretty decent sized guild but then they started a ranking system where points were awarded for participation in 5 hour long dungeon raids.  I had other interests, and a job, and a myriad of other things that occupied my time.  Before I knew it, I was so behind the points eight ball that it was pointless for me to play because I'd never be able to redeem enough points to get whatever it is one redeems points for.

Having a points or ranking system for Ambassadors will ultimately lead to the idea that one is a better Ambassador than another because they have more points, regardless of how passionate the Ambassador is.  Having ranks is detrimental to the point that Fedora is a community, moving together forward, in an inharmonious cacophony to be sure, but forward none-the-less.  Should an Ambassador be penalized because their job, family, other interests are requiring more time than they used to and they can't spend as much time with the community?

I've read this thread throughout and say ++ to a mentor system, ++ to having published milestones/events mentors encourage new ambassadors to complete.  I am completely opposed to these milestones being required to be called an Ambassador. I am opposed to having different adjectives applied to Ambassadors like provisional, probational, prospect, etc. that would indicate to someone outside the community that the participant is anything less than what they are, a volunteer, a proponent, and a member of the Fedora community dedicated toward spreading the good tidings of Fedora.

aka StabbyMc