Hi all,
Just wondering about the election results of FAmSCo? I have read the wiki page on the schedule and it should be announced on 9 June 2012, shouldn't it?
Look forward to the contributions by the new FAmSCo. :)
Regards, kaio
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Caius Chanace me@kaio.net wrote:
Hi all,
Just wondering about the election results of FAmSCo? I have read the wiki page on the schedule and it should be announced on 9 June 2012, shouldn't it?
here the announcement: Greetings, patient friends:
The elections for the Fedora Board, Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo), and Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee (FAmSCo) have concluded, and the results are shown below.
Apparently, we like to keep things interesting around here; the improbable situation of having a tie for a seat has occurred. Read on for details!
* * *
FESCo is electing 5 seats this cycle. A total of 236 ballots were cast, meaning a candidate could accumulate up to 1,888 votes (236 * 8). The results for the FESCo elections are as follows:
# votes | name ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 1319 | Kevin Fenzi (FAS: kevin, IRC: nirik) 1208 | Bill Nottingham (FAS: notting, IRC: notting) 1028 | Tomáš Mráz (FAS: tmraz, IRC: t8m) 901 | Peter Jones (FAS: pjones, IRC: pjones) 890 | Josh Boyer (FAS: jwboyer, IRC: jwb) ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 844 | Stephen Gallagher (FAS: sgallagh, IRC: sgallagh) 474 | John Dulaney (FAS:jdulaney, IRC: j_dulaney) 350 | Keiran Smith (FAS:affix, IRC:affix)
Therefore, Kevin Fenzi, Bill Nottingham, Tomáš Mráz, Peter Jones, and Josh Boyer are each elected to FESCo for a full two-release term.
* * *
FAmSCo is electing 7 seats this cycle. As this is a special transitional election for FAmSCo, all seven seats are open for election. The four candidates receiving the most votes will be seated for two release cycles and the next three candidates by vote count will be seated for one release cycle. As those terms expire, future elections will be held each release to fill the open seats for two release terms. A total of 207 ballots were cast, meaning a candidate could accumulate up to 1,863 votes (207 * 9).
# votes | name ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 1152 | Christoph Wickert (FAS: cwickert, IRC: cwickert) 887 | Jiri Eischmann (FAS: eischmann, IRC: sesivany) 796 | Clint Savage (FAS: herlo, IRC: herlo) 576 | Nick Bebout (FAS: nb, IRC: nb) ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 553 | Alejandro Perez (FAS: aeperezt, IRC: aeperezt) 543 | Daniel Bruno (FAS: dbruno, IRC: danielbruno) 512 | Buddhika Chandradeepa Kurera (FAS: bckurera, IRC: bckurera) ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 470 | Truong Anh Tuan (FAS: tuanta, IRC: tuanta) 340 | Arif Tri Waluyo (FAS: arifiauo, IRC: arifiauo)
Therefore, Christoph Wickert, Jiri Eischmann, Clint Savage, and Nick Bebout are each elected to FAmSCo for a two-release term; Alejandro Perez, Daniel Bruno, and Buddhika Chandradeepa Kurera are each elected to FAmSCo for a one-release term.
* * *
The Fedora Board is electing 3 seats this cycle. Atotal of 199 ballots were cast, meaning a candidate could accumulate up to 796 votes (199 * 4).
# votes | name ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 534 | Peter Robinson (FAS: pbrobinson, IRC: pbrobinson) 505 | Eric Christensen (FAS: sparks, IRC: sparks) 358 | Nick Bebout (FAS: nb, IRC: nb) 358 | Robert 'Bob' Jensen (FAS:bjensen, IRC: EvilBob)
Therefore: Peter Robinson and Eric Christensen are elected to the Board for a full two-release term.
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.
* * *
Congratulations to the winning candidates, and a hearty thank-you to all nominees for running and participating in this elections cycle.
Look forward to the contributions by the new FAmSCo. :)
Regards, kaio -- ambassadors mailing list ambassadors@lists.**fedoraproject.orgambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/**ambassadorshttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
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)
Congrats to every Fedoran for having candidates who took responsibility to serve us. :)
Regards, kaio
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
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
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Caius Chance me@kaio.net wrote:
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?
Oh, they can choose. Were you asking Nick to choose? Did you ask cwickert to choose? There are reasonable arguments both ways. I tend to agree with you philosophically that it would be generally best to only serve on one governance body at a time the reality is that we barely get enough candidates to fill the seats as it is so the best solution is having many more candidates to choose from.
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.
If Nick did not run for the Board there was no point in an election at all. Three candidates running for three open seats is not an election. If Nick did not run for FAmSCo there would not have been the required number of candidates to hold an election for FAmSCo.
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?
I agree philosophically. But others can and do reasonably view it differently.
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.
There were not enough people running.
John
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012, inode0 wrote:
There were not enough people running .
Okay. So the runoff election results will reflect the preference of Fedorans on this topic. I believe such results will further show the accepted fairness then. I am glad to see the whole process carried out in very transparent level.
Thanks very much for your input. :)
Regards, Kaio
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Arif Tri Waluyo -
Caius Chance -
inode0