Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for now or we have other solution.
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meeting... - 17:23:27
Regards, Jan
2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik jkurik@redhat.com:
Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for now or we have other solution.
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meeting...
- 17:23:27
Regards, Jan
-- Jan Kuřík Platform & Fedora Program Manager Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproje...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
Thank you Jan for this open discussion, I'm adding here some more informations. First of all FAmSCo is not dead and never has been officially dismissed, but FAmSCo decided months ago to hand all its repsonibilities over to FOSCo, which was planned as an even bigger committee, and which should have included also the Ambassador's activities. Therefor we reduced the activity and after some meetings without reaching a quorum FAmSCo decided to act only through the Trac until new elections would happen or FOSCo will start its activity. Many thing happened in the meanwhile and we are going towards a new and hopefully better budgeting process (thanks to all who worked on it and who are discussing it), but as you said this is not the only responsibility FAmSCo actually has. Unfortunately FAmSCo missed some of its deadlines, there is for example the EMEA FAD planning, release parties, F23 media and other stuff (which in the end happened partially but not in a coordinated way as before).
That's why I would welcome, unless we will not reach the minimum number of 7 candidates, new elections. These new memebers could give continuity to FAmSCo's activities and the big ambassadors group, on the other hand they could actively help the integration of the actual FAmSCo responsibilities into the Council, FOSCo or whatever. Canceling the Ambassadors Steering Committee without replacing *all* its activities is not the best way if we don't want to loose some parts of the community, so IMO let's do elections and find the best solution to pass over all the stuff and try to represent _all_ regions in the body who will take over in the future the FAmSCo job.
Just my 2 cents here. Thanks, kind regards.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik jkurik@redhat.com:
Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for now or we have other solution.
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meeting...
- 17:23:27
Thank you Jan for this open discussion, I'm adding here some more informations. First of all FAmSCo is not dead and never has been officially dismissed, but FAmSCo decided months ago to hand all its repsonibilities over to FOSCo, which was planned as an even bigger committee, and which should have included also the Ambassador's activities. Therefor we reduced the activity and after some meetings without reaching a quorum FAmSCo decided to act only through the Trac until new elections would happen or FOSCo will start its activity. Many thing happened in the meanwhile and we are going towards a new and hopefully better budgeting process (thanks to all who worked on it and who are discussing it), but as you said this is not the only responsibility FAmSCo actually has. Unfortunately FAmSCo missed some of its deadlines, there is for example the EMEA FAD planning, release parties, F23 media and other stuff (which in the end happened partially but not in a coordinated way as before).
That's why I would welcome, unless we will not reach the minimum number of 7 candidates, new elections. These new memebers could give continuity to FAmSCo's activities and the big ambassadors group, on the other hand they could actively help the integration of the actual FAmSCo responsibilities into the Council, FOSCo or whatever. Canceling the Ambassadors Steering Committee without replacing *all* its activities is not the best way if we don't want to loose some parts of the community, so IMO let's do elections and find the best solution to pass over all the stuff and try to represent _all_ regions in the body who will take over in the future the FAmSCo job.
Forgive me, but I have not followed the ambassador side of things for a while. If FAmSCo isn't actually meeting (per the IRC conversation) and isn't technically a thing any longer, what is the elected body to do? Start meeting again?
I do not disagree with you at all that we need people performing the tasks you highlight, but I'm not sure having an elected body to do them is necessary. Once they are elected, are we to restart FAmSCo, or would they only serve until FOSCo actually exists? Perhaps volunteers would be better than elected members of a zombie organization?
josh
2015-11-18 20:57 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik jkurik@redhat.com:
Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for now or we have other solution.
[1]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meeting...
- 17:23:27
Thank you Jan for this open discussion, I'm adding here some more informations. First of all FAmSCo is not dead and never has been officially dismissed,
but
FAmSCo decided months ago to hand all its repsonibilities over to FOSCo, which was planned as an even bigger committee, and which should have included also the Ambassador's activities. Therefor we reduced the
activity
and after some meetings without reaching a quorum FAmSCo decided to act
only
through the Trac until new elections would happen or FOSCo will start its activity. Many thing happened in the meanwhile and we are going towards a new and hopefully better budgeting process (thanks to all who worked on it and
who
are discussing it), but as you said this is not the only responsibility FAmSCo actually has. Unfortunately FAmSCo missed some of its deadlines, there is for example the EMEA FAD planning, release parties, F23 media
and
other stuff (which in the end happened partially but not in a coordinated way as before).
That's why I would welcome, unless we will not reach the minimum number
of 7
candidates, new elections. These new memebers could give continuity to FAmSCo's activities and the big ambassadors group, on the other hand they could actively help the integration of the actual FAmSCo responsibilities into the Council, FOSCo or whatever. Canceling the Ambassadors Steering Committee without replacing *all* its activities is not the best way if we don't want to loose some parts of
the
community, so IMO let's do elections and find the best solution to pass
over
all the stuff and try to represent _all_ regions in the body who will
take
over in the future the FAmSCo job.
Forgive me, but I have not followed the ambassador side of things for a while. If FAmSCo isn't actually meeting (per the IRC conversation) and isn't technically a thing any longer, what is the elected body to do? Start meeting again?
Not only starting with meetings again, but with the whole FAmSCo activity.
I do not disagree with you at all that we need people performing the tasks you highlight, but I'm not sure having an elected body to do them is necessary. Once they are elected, are we to restart FAmSCo, or would they only serve until FOSCo actually exists? Perhaps volunteers would be better than elected members of a zombie organization?
josh
Well, in my opinion there is no alternative body we have actually to perform the tasks FAmSCo was doing since now. Ambassadors are used to have their Steering Committee, and regions, although they took many responsibilities, are still relying on FAmSCo inputs and guidelines. I'm not saying we absolutely need FAmSCo and the rest is nonsense, I was and still am convinced FOSCo would be much better; it would have a larger contributor base, it would reach out more people and we probably would get more new contributors, just because we involve more teams. So, your question is exactly pointing to the core of the topic, but actually we have only one answer (my personal opinion): we need to give continuity to all the activities FAmSCo did, it's not important how long the elected body will serve, if for two full release cycles or not. It' much more important to work together with those people to make FOSCo happen soon, or if it has become an outdated project, then help the Council to be able to take over the tasks. Actually Council has prevalent NA members, no one from LATAM, no one from APAC, I don't think this is an ideal composition when speaking about ambassador's activities. I'm not saying Council's composition is wrong, the Council has a very good composition for the tasks it is working on, but that's one of the points FAmSCo worked on when we decided to hand all the tasks over to the upcoming FOSCo. Sorry, I'm not able right now to link you to the discussion with the proposals, but we agreed having 7 members, 4 nominated (one per region) and 3 elected, because we wanted to cover the whole Fedora world. Oh, and I wouldn't call FAmSCo a zombie organization, we spent much time to make all the things happen in the last years and so I think new people would do, even if they know they are going to hand over all the stuff to another body. Your concept with volunteers sounds good, but is not doable IMHO. People running for FAmSCo normally are all volunteers, and giving them an official role in a Fedora body creates much more motivation than just asking them to work as volunteers.
----- On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik jkurik@redhat.com:
Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for now or we have other solution.
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meeting...
- 17:23:27
Thank you Jan for this open discussion, I'm adding here some more informations. First of all FAmSCo is not dead and never has been officially dismissed, but FAmSCo decided months ago to hand all its repsonibilities over to FOSCo, which was planned as an even bigger committee, and which should have included also the Ambassador's activities. Therefor we reduced the activity and after some meetings without reaching a quorum FAmSCo decided to act only through the Trac until new elections would happen or FOSCo will start its activity. Many thing happened in the meanwhile and we are going towards a new and hopefully better budgeting process (thanks to all who worked on it and who are discussing it), but as you said this is not the only responsibility FAmSCo actually has. Unfortunately FAmSCo missed some of its deadlines, there is for example the EMEA FAD planning, release parties, F23 media and other stuff (which in the end happened partially but not in a coordinated way as before).
That's why I would welcome, unless we will not reach the minimum number of 7 candidates, new elections. These new memebers could give continuity to FAmSCo's activities and the big ambassadors group, on the other hand they could actively help the integration of the actual FAmSCo responsibilities into the Council, FOSCo or whatever. Canceling the Ambassadors Steering Committee without replacing *all* its activities is not the best way if we don't want to loose some parts of the community, so IMO let's do elections and find the best solution to pass over all the stuff and try to represent _all_ regions in the body who will take over in the future the FAmSCo job.
Forgive me, but I have not followed the ambassador side of things for a while. If FAmSCo isn't actually meeting (per the IRC conversation) and isn't technically a thing any longer, what is the elected body to do? Start meeting again?
I totally agree with Jiri and Robert, just add more information:
FAmSCo has Mission, Goals [1] and specific Tasks [2] to do. In fact, while waiting for the new body FOSCo formed up, except doing regular IRC meetings, we have been done others tasks normally.
I do not disagree with you at all that we need people performing the tasks you highlight, but I'm not sure having an elected body to do them is necessary. Once they are elected, are we to restart FAmSCo, or would they only serve until FOSCo actually exists? Perhaps volunteers would be better than elected members of a zombie organization?
The fact is FAmSCo in elected form would have more *power* than in volunteered form. Ambassadors expect their committee to do assigned tasks well and they elect for the most potential candidates.
I personally think FAmSCo election should be continued.
Rgds, Tuan
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Ambassadors_Steering_Committee [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_tasks
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Truong Anh Tuan tuanta@iwayvietnam.com wrote:
----- On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik jkurik@redhat.com:
Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for now or we have other solution.
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meeting...
- 17:23:27
Thank you Jan for this open discussion, I'm adding here some more informations. First of all FAmSCo is not dead and never has been officially dismissed, but FAmSCo decided months ago to hand all its repsonibilities over to FOSCo, which was planned as an even bigger committee, and which should have included also the Ambassador's activities. Therefor we reduced the activity and after some meetings without reaching a quorum FAmSCo decided to act only through the Trac until new elections would happen or FOSCo will start its activity. Many thing happened in the meanwhile and we are going towards a new and hopefully better budgeting process (thanks to all who worked on it and who are discussing it), but as you said this is not the only responsibility FAmSCo actually has. Unfortunately FAmSCo missed some of its deadlines, there is for example the EMEA FAD planning, release parties, F23 media and other stuff (which in the end happened partially but not in a coordinated way as before).
That's why I would welcome, unless we will not reach the minimum number of 7 candidates, new elections. These new memebers could give continuity to FAmSCo's activities and the big ambassadors group, on the other hand they could actively help the integration of the actual FAmSCo responsibilities into the Council, FOSCo or whatever. Canceling the Ambassadors Steering Committee without replacing *all* its activities is not the best way if we don't want to loose some parts of the community, so IMO let's do elections and find the best solution to pass over all the stuff and try to represent _all_ regions in the body who will take over in the future the FAmSCo job.
Forgive me, but I have not followed the ambassador side of things for a while. If FAmSCo isn't actually meeting (per the IRC conversation) and isn't technically a thing any longer, what is the elected body to do? Start meeting again?
I totally agree with Jiri and Robert, just add more information:
FAmSCo has Mission, Goals [1] and specific Tasks [2] to do. In fact, while waiting for the new body FOSCo formed up, except doing regular IRC meetings, we have been done others tasks normally.
Excellent. I am glad that has continued. What I am confused about is why it cannot continue to work that way until FOSCo exists.
I do not disagree with you at all that we need people performing the tasks you highlight, but I'm not sure having an elected body to do them is necessary. Once they are elected, are we to restart FAmSCo, or would they only serve until FOSCo actually exists? Perhaps volunteers would be better than elected members of a zombie organization?
The fact is FAmSCo in elected form would have more *power* than in volunteered form.
I think that's a dangerous message to send. We do not want people to believe they have more power to do something just because they are elected to a committee. The committees exist for a reason, but POWER is not one of them.
Ambassadors expect their committee to do assigned tasks well and they elect for the most potential candidates.
I personally think FAmSCo election should be continued.
If people want to run for a committee that according to all plans I've seen is to be disbanded soon, then by all means go ahead. I am not opposed to elections happening. I just question whether it is worth it in the long run, particularly since the existing FAmSCo seems to be doing well enough in the interim. Candidates should be fully aware of what they are getting into though.
But all of this aside, FOSCo needs to happen extremely soon or it needs to go back to the drawing board. It's planned existence without actual existence is causing confusion and actually causing more problems.
josh
2015-11-19 14:52 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org:
[snip]
But all of this aside, FOSCo needs to happen extremely soon or it needs to go back to the drawing board. It's planned existence without actual existence is causing confusion and actually causing more problems.
josh _______________________________________________
Josh, as always you get the point :) The main problem is: * Actual FAmSCo members are serving the commitee since June 2013, and although you're saying the interim activity is ongoing well, that's unfortunately not happening (and I feel responsible for that) * FOSCo elections would be much better, but it's a body which should have started a year ago. Do you have a plan to make FOSCo happen within the next weeks? If yes I'd say YAY!!! Probably nobody can say for sure when we are able to put FOSCo in place, define exact responsibilities, involve all the teams and write correct Wiki pages and election terms for it.
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2015-11-19 14:52 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org:
[snip]
But all of this aside, FOSCo needs to happen extremely soon or it needs to go back to the drawing board. It's planned existence without actual existence is causing confusion and actually causing more problems.
josh _______________________________________________
Josh, as always you get the point :) The main problem is:
- Actual FAmSCo members are serving the commitee since June 2013, and
although you're saying the interim activity is ongoing well, that's unfortunately not happening (and I feel responsible for that)
- FOSCo elections would be much better, but it's a body which should have
started a year ago. Do you have a plan to make FOSCo happen within the next weeks? If yes I'd say YAY!!! Probably nobody can say for sure when we are able to put FOSCo in place, define exact responsibilities, involve all the teams and write correct Wiki pages and election terms for it.
I would think the person most able to answer such questions is Remy. You are correct though, I don't believe anyone can answer them today.
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Sounds fantastic to me!
josh
On 11/19/2015 09:11 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Sounds fantastic to me!
Does this mean you're onboard with FAmSCo elections with the proviso that they should be actively working to make FOSCo happen?
Was anybody else -1 on FAmSCo elections?
Best,
jzb
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/19/2015 09:11 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Sounds fantastic to me!
Does this mean you're onboard with FAmSCo elections with the proviso that they should be actively working to make FOSCo happen?
Yes.
Was anybody else -1 on FAmSCo elections?
Not that I had seen. And to be clear, I was never -1 for FAmSCo elections either. I was/am just very concerned that the thing that is supposed to be replacing FAmSCo isn't making actual progress.
josh
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 03:08:46PM +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Just to reiterate from when I helped (?) start all this mess, I want to see several things:
* Ambassadors — and therefore FAmSco — is very focused on traditional Linux events and on Linux User Groups. We need to expand beyond that.
* Connect Ambassadors more closely to marketing, design, translation, docs, and etc.
* Have somewhere that's a natural home — as well as governance and leadership — for the parts of the project that are outside of FESCo/Engineering.
I orginally called this "outreach" (as I was thinking of these activities as largely facing out into the world), but I take Remy's point that this has a bad collision with "outreach" as used specifically about diversity. So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
Fedora Community Steering Committee?
Or if you want to bring the Fs into it:
Fedora Friends Steering Committee
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Ben Cotton bcotton@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
Fedora Community Steering Committee?
Or if you want to bring the Fs into it:
Fedora Friends Steering Committee
Why does it even need "Steering" ... or even committee. I the case of Steering it makes sense for something like engineering as it's what happens, I don't think it's the correct term for community.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:42PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
Fedora Community Steering Committee?
I have a strong objection to this, since the engineering side is _also_ community lead and community driven.
Or if you want to bring the Fs into it: Fedora Friends Steering Committee
Heh.
On 20 November 2015 at 12:09, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:42PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
Fedora Community Steering Committee?
I have a strong objection to this, since the engineering side is _also_ community lead and community driven.
Or if you want to bring the Fs into it: Fedora Friends Steering Committee
Fedora First Freedom Featureful Friendship Foundation
and if you don't paint your bike shed blue.. its not worth a darn.
Heh.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproje...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
For what it's worth, "Fedora Friends Steering Committee" was a serious suggestion. :-(
I agree with all of the criticism of the various suggestions so far. "Fedora Welcoming Committee" is my favorite of what's come up so far, but to me it implies bringing people in to the exclusion of nurturing the existing committee. I think we'd want both.
How about "Fedora People Committee"?
In the end, though, what we call the thing is probably less important than what we do with the thing. (I propose we rename this thread the Fedora Bikeshed Committee)
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 02:51:21PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
For what it's worth, "Fedora Friends Steering Committee" was a serious suggestion. :-(
It sounds like it might be a subgroup for Quakers (compare http://afsc.org/). :)
In the end, though, what we call the thing is probably less important than what we do with the thing. (I propose we rename this thread the Fedora Bikeshed Committee)
Sold!
Il giorno 20 nov 2015, alle ore 20:09, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org ha scritto:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:42PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
Fedora Community Steering Committee?
I have a strong objection to this, since the engineering side is _also_ community lead and community driven.
Or if you want to bring the Fs into it: Fedora Friends Steering Committee
Heh.
Structural Fedora Steering Committee?
Gabri
On Nov 19, 2015 14:08, "Matthew Miller" mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 03:08:46PM +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's
add to
the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play
an
*active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Just to reiterate from when I helped (?) start all this mess, I want to see several things:
Ambassadors — and therefore FAmSco — is very focused on traditional Linux events and on Linux User Groups. We need to expand beyond that.
Connect Ambassadors more closely to marketing, design, translation, docs, and etc.
Have somewhere that's a natural home — as well as governance and leadership — for the parts of the project that are outside of FESCo/Engineering.
I orginally called this "outreach" (as I was thinking of these activities as largely facing out into the world), but I take Remy's point that this has a bad collision with "outreach" as used specifically about diversity. So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
To me the ideas and terms are what I think of ambassadors to be like. An ambassador may be writing docs, making artwork, or talking with other people.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproje...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/19/2015 04:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 03:08:46PM +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Just to reiterate from when I helped (?) start all this mess, I want to see several things:
- Ambassadors — and therefore FAmSco — is very focused on
traditional Linux events and on Linux User Groups. We need to expand beyond that.
- Connect Ambassadors more closely to marketing, design,
translation, docs, and etc.
- Have somewhere that's a natural home — as well as governance and
leadership — for the parts of the project that are outside of FESCo/Engineering.
I orginally called this "outreach" (as I was thinking of these activities as largely facing out into the world), but I take Remy's point that this has a bad collision with "outreach" as used specifically about diversity. So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
"Fedora Welcoming Committee"?
On 11/19/2015 04:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I orginally called this "outreach" (as I was thinking of these activities as largely facing out into the world), but I take Remy's point that this has a bad collision with "outreach" as used specifically about diversity. So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
Might be silly, but why not just replace "Ambassadors" with "Advocacy"?
(If the suggestion stinks, I blame late Friday afternoon and cold medications.)
Best,
jzb
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 03:08:46PM +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks. Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Just to reiterate from when I helped (?) start all this mess, I want to see several things:
Ambassadors — and therefore FAmSco — is very focused on traditional Linux events and on Linux User Groups. We need to expand beyond that.
Connect Ambassadors more closely to marketing, design, translation, docs, and etc.
Have somewhere that's a natural home — as well as governance and leadership — for the parts of the project that are outside of FESCo/Engineering.
The first two have been expected out of the Ambassadors, if not actually written down. "Fedora Ambassadors" came after the fact ie. individuals who were already continuously contributing were sought out to become the first group of "Ambassadors". Since then, the program/effort has undergone a bunch of changes but the basic requirements haven't morphed much. If Ambassadors are not interacting across teams, this needs to be addressed and encouraged to happen. Otherwise, the entire point of being the "face of Fedora" and routes to on-board of potential contributors falls flat.
A number of the Fedora Ambassadors are also participants across programming and 'maker' communities. At least in India, they span across programming languages, orchestration and configuration management, sysadmin, DevOps and other groups/SIGs etc. This allows the Fedora message to be present to the largest possible audience. If FAmSCo is narrowly focused, a review of the sponsorship approvals would indicate the higher proportion of UG and traditional Linux events. And it should be encouraged to be do a more diverse set of outreach.
So, if the advantages of renaming could be explained more in terms of benefits accrued and whether those can actually be achieved by the overhaul of the existing processes, it would be easier to comprehend.
I orginally called this "outreach" (as I was thinking of these activities as largely facing out into the world), but I take Remy's point that this has a bad collision with "outreach" as used specifically about diversity. So if anyone has a better word, I'd love to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
And this would be a novel way to create schism. I'm not sure I like this trend I see through the decisions - "Flock is a better FUDCon; "Non Engineering" (*). Being partisan and implicitly divisive is not useful in the long run. I am sure this is not the intent, but what gets written and discussed seems to drive home that point.
/s
(*) the history of the Language/Translation infrastructure has a particular incident that has its origins in the lack of consultation with the deemed "non engineering" groups. Let's learn from that and not repeat it under a new banner.
On November 19, 2015 8:52:28 PM GMT+07:00, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Truong Anh Tuan tuanta@iwayvietnam.com wrote:
The fact is FAmSCo in elected form would have more *power* than in volunteered form.
I think that's a dangerous message to send. We do not want people to believe they have more power to do something just because they are elected to a committee. The committees exist for a reason, but POWER is not one of them.
I just want to compare the effects of elected persons to volunteered ones, NOT any other meanings :)
Il giorno mer, 18/11/2015 alle 16.26 +0100, Jan Kurik ha scritto:
Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for now or we have other solution.
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fed ora-meeting-2.2015-11-17-17.03.log.html
- 17:23:27
Regards, Jan
Hello,
I'm really confused, here [1] FOSCo was underway but till today I never heard anything about their instances [2] since it's stuck (on March?). In this page [3] wiki explain what FOSCo is and FAmSCo approved the setting up.
In the last months FAmSCo would have been terminated, but nothing happened (as far as I know), so it went ahead doing basic things just like being the Ambassadors point of reference (and even just this justifies its existence).
Now Council takes care of budgeting (and that's ok), but what about Ambassadors coordination? We know ambassadors are our front men and leaving them going forward without a committee that is able to get in touch with all the parts of the Project is harmful. There are dozens of ambassadors around the world and we can't allow them to go without a coordination.
Yes there's the ambassadors meetings but they are separated for each region and I don't like they would not communicate anymore. Don't think Council is able to do this as well.
Finally, I can't believe that leaving every part of the Project (except FESCo things) in the Council's hands would be useful and faster.
So FAmSCo or FOSCo, but one of them must happen.
Just my two cents.
Thank you.
Gabri
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/371 [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fosco/report/1 [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo%C2%A0;
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Gabriele Trombini g.trombini@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm really confused,
Me too!
here [1] FOSCo was underway but till today I never heard anything about their instances [2] since it's stuck (on March?). In this page [3] wiki explain what FOSCo is and FAmSCo approved the setting up.
I think that's correct.
In the last months FAmSCo would have been terminated, but nothing happened (as far as I know), so it went ahead doing basic things just like being the Ambassadors point of reference (and even just this justifies its existence).
Which is great. I'm glad the work was continued.
Now Council takes care of budgeting (and that's ok), but what about Ambassadors coordination? We know ambassadors are our front men and leaving them going forward without a committee that is able to get in touch with all the parts of the Project is harmful. There are dozens of ambassadors around the world and we can't allow them to go without a coordination.
I agree.
Yes there's the ambassadors meetings but they are separated for each region and I don't like they would not communicate anymore. Don't think Council is able to do this as well.
Finally, I can't believe that leaving every part of the Project (except FESCo things) in the Council's hands would be useful and faster.
Definitely not. The Council doesn't _want_ to handle this either. It actively wants FOSCo (or whatever) to exist as soon as possible.
So FAmSCo or FOSCo, but one of them must happen.
Yes, absolutely.
josh
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ben Cotton -
Gabriele Trombini -
Jan Kurik -
Joe Brockmeier -
Josh Boyer -
Matthew Miller -
Peter Robinson -
Robert Mayr -
sankarshan -
Stephen Gallagher -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Truong Anh Tuan