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

Thu Apr 19 01:28:17 UTC 2012

Hi Nick,
hi everybody,

I think this needs way more explanation than you deliver in your email.
Without knowing the background and by only relying on your angled view,
people get a totally wrong impression of what is going on.

Am Mittwoch, den 18.04.2012, 10:54 -0500 schrieb Nick Bebout:
> I hereby respectfully petition the Fedora Board to dissolve the current
> FAmSCo and call new elections.

I think you should have first spoken with FAmSCo in order to try
resolving the situation amicably.  The board should only be called if
the ambassadors cannot resolve the issue.

> FAmSCo voted in their meeting tonight to shorten the term of the lowest
> vote-getters from the last election and to have those as the seats that
> get re-elected next to start the new staggered terms.  

The reason we did this are the new FAmSCo election guidelines [1] that
were ratified 2 weeks ago [2].  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 [3].

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.

> 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.  

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.

Second I am not sure if this is really a benefit because those who run
for election will then serve another year while the others only have 6
months left.

> This is a conflict of interest and thus they should not be
> allowed to vote on that matter.  

To me this is not a conflict but something very natural in a
meritocratic system like Fedora.  Some FAmSCo members are more active
than others and attend the meetings more regularly.  They are present
when it comes to making a decision, not only today but every week.

The active members also happen to be ones that get the most votes in the
elections.  To me this doesn't show ill will or a conflict of interests
but proves that our system work.

I am convinced that everybody who does good work will be re-elected, no
matter when he has to run or how long he served before.

> If they want to implement the staggered
> terms starting with the next election, all members of FAmSCo should stand
> for reelection, and have it noted that the top voted people would serve
> two releases and the others would serve one.  This way the voters would
> know what we are voting for.
> 
> Also, our current FAmSCo seems unwilling to vote gbraad out, despite his
> repeated failure to attend meetings, or participate in any discussions.

This is the part that does not make sense to me.  On the one hand you
complain that inactive members do not vote and the active members make a
decision, but on the other hand you want to have somebody removed from
FAmSCo without talking to him first and giving him a chance to chance to
explain himself.

We have a policy for removal of members: "In the event of repeated
absence without contact, or other serious misconduct or negligence, a
FAmSCo member may be subject to removal.  Before any other process
occurs, the FAmSCo member in question will be personally contacted by
the FAmSCo Chair to try to resolve the situation.  If this contact does
not successfully resolve the situation, the FAmSCo member in question
may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of FAmSCo." [1]

This is what currently happens.  We have started the process but not yet
made a decision.  I have contacted the person in question, got a quick
reply and we agreed he will get back to me after the weekend.  He will
try to catch up with FAmSCo business and then make a decision if he can
make it or not.

Even if this person did not serve FAmSCo in this term, we prefer to not
make this decision against but with him.  We believe that issues can be
resolved amicably and so should you.

This being said here is my proposal:
      * Wait a few days for feedback from the ambassadors. Either they
        share your concerns and think it is unfair to require some
        members to run again while not others, or they are fine with our
        decision because they agree to the results of the previous
        elections.
      * If there is support from the ambassadors for your petition,
        *all* seats will be up for the F18 election.  The 4 highest
        vote-getters will serve two releases, the lowest 3 will serve 1
        release.  This was option 2 in my mail from last week [4].

The other option would be to let everybody finish his 1 year term
(option 4), but this would delay the shift to the new guidelines. 

The new FAmSCo election guidelines offer some huge advantages, most
notably we extend the group eligible voters from ambassadors to CLA+1,
this means to everybody who signed the Contributors License Agreement
and is member of at least one other group can vote.  This is a big
advantage and we think this is a good reason to make the shift to the
new guidelines ASAP.

Please note that I only speak for myself at this point and not for
FAmSCo.  While I am personally perfectly fine with running again for
F18, I still need the other members to buy in to my proposal.  If I were
to offer you all seats for the election no matter if your petition
receives support or not, a single person (you) would effectively
overpower FAmSCo. I think we all agree that this is not fair either.

Kind regards,
Christoph

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Cwickert/Proposed_FAmSCo_election_rules
[2]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-04-04/famsco.2012-04-04-22.02.log.html#l-52
[3] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Cwickert/FAmSCo_election_rules_analysis
[4] 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/2012-April/001044.html