[Ambassadors] Petition for Board to dissolve FAmSCo and call new elections

[inode0]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> although I and Clint already drew our consequences from the petition, I
> still think that the people need to get the full picture.  Please let me
> provide some background information and my completely biased views.

Hi Christoph,

I don't want to prolong this much more but I do want to say a few more
things in response.

First, I don't want to see good people step down which may make things
even messier in the end. I can live with whatever decision is made as
I said at the end of my first post even if I have trouble
understanding it.

Second, I don't want the Fedora Board or anyone else to dissolve
FAmSCo. I have sympathy for the frustration expressed in the original
post, but that is different from wanting it to happen.

Third, what you see as showing respect for the previous election I see
as disregarding the contract it made with the electorate. But now I
can see your point of view better so thanks for explaining it again.

The announcement for the upcoming elections is scheduled to go out on
the 24th. We'll need to make some changes to accommodate a FAmSCo
election, nothing that is hard to do but I'll need a little time to do
them. So if at all possible please let me know what the decision is by
the 22nd so I have time to tweak the wiki and questionnaire to include
FAmSCo's election.

I will make a few more remarks inline below but this email is so long
I don't expect anyone to read further unless they are named Christoph
or they are gluttons for punishment.

Thanks,
John

> Am Mittwoch, den 18.04.2012, 23:40 -0500 schrieb inode0:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Christoph Wickert
>> <christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I have a fair amount of sympathy for this request based on both this
>> decision and on its habitual difficulty getting a quorum to conduct
>> even routine business. Although after a 15 minute wait at most
>> meetings a quorum eventually does seem to show up.
>
> Noted, lets remember this for the rest of this discussion.  This is
> really important because it's a major concern we all share.
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't think we are overturning the results but we wanted to use them
> to make a decision.  We have range voting and it gives us a good
> impression of who people trust most.  This is what people voted for and
> I don't see why we shouldn't rely on it.

I am beginning to understand your point of view now.

> If you consider shortening the term to 6 months - no matter if only for
> some or for all FAmSCo members - overturning the elections, we can do
> nothing but to continue until F19, and this means FAmSCo, the
> ambassadors and Fedora as a whole will not benefit from the changes of
> the new election guidelines.

True and I do think waiting to F19 for the new election rules to take
effect is the best way to proceed. I can't measure the harm from the
loss of benefits any more than I can measure the harm from taking a
different route by moving the elections up one release. So I can't
really form an opinion based on that.

>> > 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.
>
> Agreed, but there is no a big difference between the electorate deciding
> in a month or 5 months ago. Do you really think the results of the next
> election would be fundamentally different? Do you think people would
> have voted differently if they knew that some people would have to run
> for re-election after 6 months?

I don't accept that the electorate made this decision 5 months ago and
I don't presume to know how they would have voted had three seats been
limited to one release terms at the time.

>> FAmSCo is clearly trying to
>> make FAmSCo a more productive governance body for the benefit of
>> Fedora.
>
> Thank you, It's good to see you at least share our goal, even if you
> don't agree with FAmSCo's decision how to get there.

I do very much share your goal and I also heartily endorse the work
put into reforming the election process for FAmSCo as well as the
other governance issues you have addressed. I really do not want to be
seen as an "enemy" of your reforms because I strongly support them.

I have a very narrow objection to the transition method selected. I
take elections more seriously than I take most processes and rules. To
me they form a bond between the governed and those who chose them and
the agreement struck at the time of the election should not be
violated by either side. This does sometimes result in having to live
with less than ideal leadership, sometimes it results in a
dysfunctional governance body. (I'm speaking here not of FAmSCo or
Fedora but of elections in general.) This I accept as a consequence of
my choice when I voted and I wait for my chance to correct my mistake
in the next election.

Perhaps I should stop thinking of Fedora elections in the way I think
of elections generally. I'll give that more thought.

>> > First of all this is not correct.  We had 4 different options, outlined
>> > in a long mail [4].  In the meeting it turned out to come down to a
>> > decision between two different options (#1 and #3).  It was 3:2 and the
>> > vote that made the final decision for having the next elections with F18
>> > and have the seats of the 3 lowest vote-getters open for election came
>> > from Kaio.  He is one of the 3 persons affected by this change, so what
>> > you claim is definitely not true.
>>
>> Given the vote by Kaio I can accept that he is in effect offering to
>> step down. The same cannot be said about the others and I don't see
>> anything in our governance rules that allows FAmSCo to remove them
>> from office before their 2 releases are complete unless FAmSCo or the
>> Fedora Project Board removes them for misconduct.
>
> They are not removed, they are asked to run again for election if they
> want to continue serving on FAmSCo.  And Kaio did not step down either,
> neither theoretically nor effectively.

I don't see any point to semantic disagreements here. We all can see
exactly what is happening.

> A removal for misconduct is something completely different.  It's
> different procedure with very different rules and outcomes, both
> according to the old and the new guidelines.
>
> BTW: The board cannot remove somebody from FAmSCo and it cannot dissolve
> FAmSCo as this petition claims.  Only the FPL can veto our decision
> about the transition.