[Ambassadors] Ambassadors list vs. FAmSCo list
inode0 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 00:54:48 UTC 2011
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
> when I recently complained about low attendance in the first meeting of
> the newly elected FAmSCo, many people suggested to make use of
> mailing lists more often. While I do have some concerns about the
> efficiency, I fully agree that we should give it a try.
> As you also might know I was one of the people who demanded making
> FAmSCo list public readable two years ago. Now I'd like to encourage
> usage of trac for FAmSCo business and therefor we should have a list
> where all tickets from FAmSco are sent to.
> As trac is not fully public, the list we use cannot be public either.
> This makes me wonder if this was a good idea to open FAmSCo list. SO we
> have two options:
> 1. Keep FAmSCo list public, but create a famsco-private list. This
> is just like the board.
> 2. Make FAmSCo list private again and use the ambassadors list for
> all public FAmSCo discussions. This is what FESCO does.
> At this point I am not sure which proposal is better. The second one
> will make FAmSCo members use ambassadors list more often and improve
> transparency and participation, but on the other hand it will also
> increase the noise level and make things more.
> What is better? Please state your opinions!
Does there really need to be a private list? Can't you just forward
the trac email to the 7 members of FAmSCo?
The board never discusses anything on their public list so please do
not model FAmSCo after the board. If your two proposed choices are the
only options I would vote for setting things up like FESCo.
I do have reservations about both choices. In my opinion the FESCo has
very open, active, and substantive regular public meetings. Without
those occurring with FAmSCo I'm not sure the same underlying structure
will be effective. FESCo maintains a lot of transparency due to their
More information about the ambassadors