2017-02-17 16:57 GMT+01:00 Christian Dersch <chrisdersch(a)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.
--
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)