[Ambassadors] FAmSCo election results?

[inode0]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Caius Chance <me at kaio.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 June 2012, inode0 wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Caius Chanace <me at kaio.net> wrote:
>> > On 12/06/12 16:00, Arif Tri Waluyo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Additionally: Nick Bebout and Robert 'Bob' Jensen have tied for the
>> >> remaining seat; a runoff election will be held to determine the
>> >> remaining seat, beginning Tuesday, June 12, and ending Tuesday, June
>> >> 19.
>> >
>> >
>> > Very interesting that a tie was reached.
>> >
>> > As Nick Bebout has won on two elections, has election guidelines
>> > mentioned
>> > about this situation? Just wondering if it had been a common situation
>> > for
>> > this in past? (My personal thought was see if an extra FAmSCo candidate
>> > from
>> > APAC can join. :P)
>>
>> I don't follow here. Nick was elected to FAmSCo. That has no bearing
>> on his being elected to any other governance body and never has had
>> any bearing on it.
>>
>> While this topic comes up every once in a while because some people
>> don't like others sitting on multiple governance bodies one way to
>> solve that problem is to run yourself.
>>
>> I would encourage all ambassadors to not be overly focused on regional
>> representation. It is nice to have steering committee members from all
>> regions but I don't view it as critical. Every single FAmSCo member
>> should work hard for ALL ambassadors.
>>
>> John
>> --
>> ambassadors mailing list
>> ambassadors at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
>
>
> I don't follow there, too.
>
> Running yourself won't solve the problem. There is no problem for running in
> multiple governance bodies elections, especially the voting periods are very
> close and the results are released at once. This increases the opportunity
> to be elected.
>
> However, if a person is elected in more than one governance bodies, why
> cannot he/she consider choosing either of the positions for the good of more
> opportunity to others? Isn't great to get more Fedorans gaining skills and
> experiences of leadership?

Oh, they can choose. Were you asking Nick to choose? Did you ask
cwickert to choose? There are reasonable arguments both ways. I tend
to agree with you philosophically that it would be generally best to
only serve on one governance body at a time the reality is that we
barely get enough candidates to fill the seats as it is so the best
solution is having many more candidates to choose from.

> Given that there were enough candidates in the elections, saying something
> similar to "lack of people interested to take responsibility contributing in
> Fedora" for justifying multi appointment is just inaccurate to the
> situation. Even everyone was running for elections, it won't eliminate the
> case of someone winning more than one elections.

If Nick did not run for the Board there was no point in an election at
all. Three candidates running for three open seats is not an election.
If Nick did not run for FAmSCo there would not have been the required
number of candidates to hold an election for FAmSCo.

> Besides, although board and FAmSCo had not influencing each others'
> decisions substantially in past, the structure of Board and FAmSCo is more
> like vertical connection. When powers and responsibilities are superset and
> subset relationship, why taking 2 spaces rather than introducing more views
> and thoughts in either governance bodies?

I agree philosophically. But others can and do reasonably view it differently.

> The focus on regional representation was not my main point here. I am
> personally happy to have anyone from any regions, just not the same person
> in Board and FAmSCo, or Board and FESCo. There are people ran for elections
> who are willing to share the work.
>
> I don't follow there, too.

There were not enough people running.

John