I have not read all of the posts in this thread, but I thought I would
share some of my thoughts.
I think there is a difference between 'activity' / 'inactivity' vs. a
person who promotes multiple distros. I think it is reasonable to look
at activity, but it would not be beneficial to force a person to only
use Fedora. I also question the value of attempting to remove Ambassador
'status' from people based on inactivity. How much effort would have to
be put in to doing so? When it comes to getting resources, funding, etc
activity should be looked at, but I am not sure it would be valuable to
spend time to check everyone on a regular basis.
I agree. There is a very low amount of value to people doing that... and
---- inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
> What we need a broad discussion about is whether it is a good idea to
> ask ambassadors to basically file complaints against other
> ambassadors for nothing more than inactivity and whether FAmSCo or
> regional groups should endorse this sort of arrangement. And I think
> on this point I agree with Tristan. If someone came to me in a FAmNA
> meeting to file such an action against an inactive ambassador I would
> say I have more reason to expel the person wasting my time with this
> than I do the inactive ambassador.
it opens the door to petty squabbles and unecessary conflict.
full disclosure: I run Ubuntu and Fedora.
My thoughts.
Charles
--
ambassadors mailing list
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors