[Ambassadors] Discussion: revoking ambassador status

[Jiri Eischmann]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tristan Santore" <tristan.santore at internexusconnect.net>
To: ambassadors at lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:02:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Ambassadors] Discussion: revoking ambassador status

On 27/02/14 18:51, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> Tristan Santore píše v Čt 27. 02. 2014 v 16:40 +0000:
>> On 27/02/14 16:28, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
>>> Pierre-Yves Chibon píše v Čt 27. 02. 2014 v 15:57 +0100:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 03:33:00PM +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
>>>>> inode0 píše v Čt 27. 02. 2014 v 07:52 -0600:
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jukka Palander <jukka at devspain.com> wrote:
>>>>> Originally, we wanted to use some automated mechanism such as checking
>>>>> the last time stamp when the ambassador logged into FAS. Because if you
>>>>> haven't logged into FAS for, say, 2 years you're not probably around the
>>>>> project any more. If you met such a condition all that would happen to
>>>>> you would be an "inactive" flag that would remove you from the public
>>>>> list of ambassadors, but you would remain a member of the ambassadors
>>>>> group, and you could change the flag back to "active" any time.
>>>>> Unfortunately our infra don't log such information.
>>>> That's actually not true, we do keep info on what someone last logged into FAS.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I could gather some numbers a little like I did for packagers:
>>>> http://blog.pingoured.fr/index.php?post/2013/12/18/Fedora-packagers-activity
>>>>
>>>> I could use datagrepper and FAS and that should be pretty simple to do :)
>>> That would be splendid!
>>> I spoke with Patrick about it he told me the infra didn't keep such
>>> info.
>>>
>>> IMHO the cleanest solution would be to notify people who haven't logged
>>> in for more than 2 years (or any other period we agree on) and tell them
>>> they're currently flagged as inactive, but they can easily change in
>>> their FAS account administration. They wouldn't lose the membership,
>>> they would just not be listed in the public list, and they would be just
>>> a few clicks from being considered active again.
>>> We would avoid any process hassle, fights, and heated blood.
>>>
>>> Jiri
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ambassadors mailing list
>>> ambassadors at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
>> I did read your ticket, I had to login for that one!
>> Question is did you read my reply properly. SHOULD had a real meaning there.
>> Also, this discussion has come up for years and years. Some FAS accounts
>> are already set as inactive under certain conditions. I made sure to
>> check with Infra before I wrote a reply.
>>
>> Also, my last email was strongly worded, because some imbecile
>> complained about another ambassadors activity or lack thereof and
>> questioning why he was using another distribution.
>>
>> Quite frankly, either which is none of the persons businesses and not a
>> good way to encourage ambassador activities.
>>
>> So, I would like to know, where you think I have twisted "claims", I
>> actually quoted a bit of your ticket too.
> You're twisting our words because you're saying or reacting to something
> that is not in the proposal.
> Once for all: we do NOT want to judge anyone's activity and we do NOT
> want to encourage anyone to do so. The issue are not ambassadors who are
> not visibly active or are not doing "enough". That's perfectly fine.
> We're trying to find a solution how to clean the ambassadors group from
> people who are not clearly interested in any connection with the Fedora
> Project any more, who wouldn't even care if we removed them from the
> group.
>
> Based on the discussion, I think it's pretty obvious that doing it
> manually by submitting requests might lead to a bad atmosphere in the
> project. Mainly because it could lead to false positives and hence
> offending people. So we should keep looking for a solution which is
> non-invasive and based on the FAS data. That's I guess the most
> important outcome from the discussion so far.
>
> Jiri
>
> --
> ambassadors mailing list
> ambassadors at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
To quote your email:

Hi,
yesterday we had a long discussion about whether we want to have a
mechanism to remove completely inactive ambassadors or not. This issue
is brought up again and again, so I think it's time to discuss it
properly and eventually make a decision.

You can find more in this ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/358


I just read the ticket with mentions two issues! And made comments to 
such effect. But again, even if somebody has been inactive for a number 
of years. Why are they inactive in the first place ?

So, how about finding out about reasons as to why people are inactive, 
instead of just cleaning them out.

Yeah well, FAmSCo is tries to think about initiatives to keep active ambassadors who are interested. But inactivity (by inactivity I mean leaving the project and never looking back) is a natural thing. People come and go. You can have the most superb community project on the planet and you still will have people who will leave it and never come back. Many open source projects have a mechanism how to get rid of "zombie" members and because this topic is brought up again and again I think we should have one, too.

There is a real issue in attracting more contributors, which will not be 
addressed by just removing the people from certain groups in fas. We 
never delete FAS accounts, so that means, it makes no real sense to even 
remove them from groups they are in, unless this is a security related 
issue. But in terms of Infra, people get emailed if their SSH key needs 
updating and if they do not reply, they are inactivated. But that is a 
totally different issue.

So you say that the ambassador membership is for lifetime no matter what? That's an absolutely valid opinion. I noted at the beginning of the ticket that first we have to make clear if we think that the ambassador membership is for lifetime or not. If we mostly agree it is, then we don't have to go further in the discussion about removing "zombie" members.
I personally don't think it should be or I think there should at least be active/inactive memberships. Because if we leave it the way it is now after years we can end up with a project that have 10,000 ambassadors out of which 1,000 will be somehow around still interested in the project out of which 500 will be somehow active. For an outsider, and probably not only for an outsider, but also Fedora contributors, it will be an absolute nightmare to find an ambassador who will answer their questions or help them. Yes, I'm extrapolating, we as a whole project are not close to such a situation, but it's the inevitable future and some countries are quite close to it already now.
But as I said if the predominant opinion turns out to be that ambassador membership is for lifetime with no compromises I personally will vote against any changes because the last thing FAmSCo should do is overriding opinions shared by most ambassadors. 

And to quote Inode0:

We don't need a broad discussion about Code of Conduct violations and
we really don't need a broad discussion about periodically cleaning up
accounts as has been done in the past.


So, I am clearly not the only person who has interpreted the ticket in 
that manner! Jiri, did you post the wrong ticket by accident ?

Yes, a lot of other people interpreted it in the meant way. C'mon, this part of the conversation is getting ridiculous.
In the ticket, I clearly say: "this should really cover only ambassadors who are completely inactive and unresponsive. It's hard to measure ambassador's work, so if there is any sign of activity or responsiveness from the ambassador he/she shouldn't be removed."

I also made clear here in the mailing list that we don't aim at ambassadors who are just inactive. That's all from me to this particular subtopic.

Jiri