9:26 a.m.
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-meet...
- 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
10:05 a.m.
2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)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-meet...
- 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
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.
--
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
1:57 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr
<robyduck(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)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-meet...
> - 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
2:43 p.m.
2015-11-18 20:57 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org>:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr
<robyduck(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)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-meet...
>> - 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.
--
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
2:26 a.m.
----- On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr
<robyduck(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)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-meet...
>> - 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
7:41 a.m.
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 ;
7:45 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Gabriele Trombini <g.trombini(a)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
7:52 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Truong Anh Tuan <tuanta(a)iwayvietnam.com> wrote:
----- On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr
> <robyduck(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> 2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)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-meet...
>>> - 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
8:08 a.m.
2015-11-19 14:52 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)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?
--
Robert Mayr
(robyduck)
8:11 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Robert Mayr <robyduck(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
2015-11-19 14:52 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)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
10:10 a.m.
On November 19, 2015 8:52:28 PM GMT+07:00, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Truong Anh Tuan
<tuanta(a)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 :)
--
Regards,
Tuan
11:32 a.m.
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
--
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
11:37 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb(a)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
3:03 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
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? :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
3:20 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)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
--
Ben Cotton
3:29 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
On Nov 19, 2015 14:08, "Matthew Miller" <mattdm(a)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(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list
council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community.
4:02 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)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.
7:33 a.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
-----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"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlZPIR4ACgkQeiVVYja6o6PHpwCfThOYbYrB0ua6DvotE7Ql59yD
dxMAn21dRsOvNdUD3//xOMNpYuQ+yq5V
=XNe3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:09 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
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.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
1:46 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
On 20 November 2015 at 12:09, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)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(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list
council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
1:51 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
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)
--
Ben Cotton
1:52 p.m.
New subject: [Ambassadors] Re: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re: Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
Il giorno 20 nov 2015, alle ore 20:09, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)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
2:32 p.m.
New subject: [Ambassadors] future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to
see [was Re: Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
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
--
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
7:31 p.m.
New subject: [Ambassadors] future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to
see [was Re: Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)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.
--
sankarshan mukhopadhyay
<http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog/>
12:02 p.m.
New subject: future "bigger than famsco thing": what I want to see [was Re:
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo]
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!
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
3075
days inactive
3079
days old
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
24 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
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