Il 08/dic/2017 12:39 AM, "Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski" <> ha scritto:
On Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 18:54, Jan Kurik wrote:
> During the Autumn 2017 Election cycle we wanted to try a new approach
> in the way how Elections are organized [1]. Unfortunately, at the
> beginning of the Voting period we realized the new way does not work
> as expected [2] and even we tried to put some mitigation plan in place
> [3], we have not succeeded. To come up with some workable solution we
> have decided to cancel the currently running Autumn 2017 Elections and
> start it again in early January 2018. In upcoming days I will publish
> a schedule for the January 2018 Elections as well as more details on
> how we are going to organize it.

Who is "we" that "decided" to cancel the running elections? What were the
reasons for this "decision"? I object to this strongly. It doesn't look
like this "decision" was made through an open process as is the usual
Fedora way. I can't even find a Council ticket for this or a thread
in the council-discuss mailing list.

I'm afraid I'm losing confidence that the current Council is capable
of leading Fedora if they cannot even hold an election according to
the current documented rules without breaking them in more than one way.

I haven't checked if elections to the Council and Mindshare were
organized according to policy (maybe I should!), but with FESCo
elections, the following were broken:
1. Candidate nominations were accepted later than 3 days before
   the voting period started. This contradicts
2. Candidates whose interviews weren't ready for publication before the
   start of the voting period were not disqualified. This contradicts

Due to not having enough (number of open seats + 25%) candidates on the
day before the voting period, the nomination period was extended by 3
days. Arguably, the extension should have happened 3 days earlier
and should have been made longer than 3 days because extending by 3 days
on the eve of the voting period start still doesn't give anyone a chance
to be nominated according to .
I'd have extended by at least a week, also due to infrastructure
instability this week. The interview readiness deadline was,
suprisingly, extended by a week, allowing candidates who couldn't be
bothered to write their interviews to be voted in anyway. Nothing was
said about disqualifying candidates who'd fail to publish their interviews
despite getting votes in the first few days of the elections.

Last but not least, I wonder why all elections are being cancelled
instead of just FESCo. This was not explained, either.

With sad regards,
Fedora  |  RPMFusion
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
        -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
ambassadors mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to

It think you stated your opinion more than once now and I also know "we" (Council) gave you all the reasons for any decision we took in public. We wanted to try something new and it didn't work, it is not constructive at all to continue with the same concerns neither by deleting interviews in sign of protest.
I also think you know perfectly why all elections have been cancelled, interviews were missing for several candidates and if we would have cancelled just FESCo you probably would complain about the decision because we treat bodies in different ways. 
So, let's be constructive and eventually make proposals, we all are part of a community, we are not politicians or either role, but want to have equal elections with a smooth process.
If you have ideas to improve that (and I think you already did in some way) we will and want to take that in consideration. We also have some new tickets in Council pagure too about that.
Kind regards 

Robert Mayr