[Ambassadors] Petition for Board to dissolve FAmSCo and call new elections
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Apr 19 15:28:10 UTC 2012
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:40:29PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Christoph Wickert
> <christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The reason we did this are the new FAmSCo election guidelines  that
> > were ratified 2 weeks ago . Instead of having all 7 seats open for
> > election once a year we want half of them to be elected with every
> > release. This is exactly what the board and FESCo do. It will improve
> > continuity and make it easier for newcomers to get used to FAmSCo
> > business. More about the motivation can be found at .
> While I agree with that motivation I think we should also follow
> FESCo's example of how to do an orderly transition without overturning
> the results of a previous election. The idea that four people,
> regardless of their composition, can overturn election results for
> three others I find pretty offensive.
> > In order to make this change happen, we need to make a cut at some
> > point. No matter if it happens sooner or later, some members will only
> > be able to serve FAmSCo for 6 months.
> There is a big difference between the electorate deciding who those
> members are and four members of FAmSCo deciding.
> >> It also just so
> >> happens that the ones that voted for that proposal are the ones that would
> >> benefit by that proposal by not having to stand for reelection at the next
> >> election.
> I don't agree with what this suggests. FAmSCo is clearly trying to
> make FAmSCo a more productive governance body for the benefit of
I agree with inode0 in both of these quotes. Here's how that affects my
The action of disolving FAMSCo to me would mean removing all the members of
FAMSCo from their positions effective immediately upon the Board voting. To
me, this is too harsh a measure for something that I perceive as being done
in good faith. Even though I dont see why FAMSCo feels the need to rush
something through rather than having a transition, I don't think their
motivation is to amass the powers and responsibilities of FAMSCo in their
hands but to make Fedora better.
Knowing that, I would hope that FAMSCo members would also see that merely
having good intentions is not enough. One must also consider what effects
one's actions will have on others. In this case, I think FAMSCo looked at
the concrete effects of their decision (FAMSCo may have better turnout and
make better decisions in the future due to having knowledge of past FAMSCo's
carry over with those Board members who have served before) but didn't
assign enough value to the perception that their decision leaves in the
minds of others.
While this decision may have been the most expeditious choice for getting
the new guidelines into use the soonest, it was certainly not the choice
that is the most fair to the electorate or to the elected. It leaves those
who voted for it open to the perception of being power hungry and bending
the spirit of the rules to meet their own agenda. To me, that sort of
taint will cause more harm than the delay caused by having one final
election to bootstrap the new Guidelines into effect.
With all of that in mind, I do not think the Board's first reaction to this
should be to "dissolve FAMSCo". However, I would definitely ask that FAMSCo
reconsider their decision on how to implement the new Guidelines. Option #2
(I believe it was the same in the meeting. I'm going by the email right
now_) was to have all seats re-elected at the F18 election with the
4 highest vote getters serving 1 year and the other 3 seats serving for
6 months. This would make the transition swiftly while also taking care of
the perception of unfairness. This, I think, might be a good compromise
between Option 1 and 3 which received votes at the meeting.
From some of the discussion between nb and cwickert at the very end of the
meeting I think that FAMSCo is going to re-evaluate this. If so, someone
should make an announcement to that effect and (as was noted in the meeting)
it should probably receive discussion on the ambassadors list. If that's
not the case, please open a ticket for the Board so they can decide if they
want to step in officially or not. If such a ticket is opened, please
include any time constraints (for instance, someone mentioned that the F18
FAMSCo elections are scheduled to be announced soon) so we know how quickly
we need to resolve this.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the advisory-board