[FAmSCo] Transition to the new FAmSCo election guidelines
christoph.wickert at googlemail.com
Thu Apr 12 17:55:09 UTC 2012
last week we ratified new FAmSCo election rules . As all of you
(should) know, these guidelines require a transition from having all
seats subject to an election every two releases to having half of them
open every release. This will improve continuity and solve other
problems as outlined in .
There are several options to make transition happen:
Do as is written in the wiki: 7 seats were up for the F17 and earlier
elections, and the F18 election will have 3 seats up for vote. The 3
seats that will be up for election will be the bottom 3 vote-getters
from the F17 election. The 4 seats not up for election in the F18
election, will be up for election in F19.
* People agreed to this change.
* Shift happens ASAP.
* Two of the three people affected were not present in the
* People were elected under the old rules and for a 12 months
All seats will be up for the F18 election. The 4 (or 3) highest
vote-getters will serve two releases, the lowest 3 (or 4) vote-getters
will serve 1 release.
* Shift happens ASAP.
* Equal chances for everybody.
* Voters (hopefully) are aware of the change when they vote.
* People don't serve the 12 months term they were elected for.
As option 2 but delayed by one release: All seats will be up for F19
election, the 4 (or 3) highest vote-getters will serve two releases, the
3 (or 4) lowest vote-getters will serve 1 release.
* All the advantages of option 2 plus people serve the 12 months
term they were elected for.
* Shift is delayed.
* Inactive members remain in FAmSCo if we don't remove them.
Ask to step down voluntarily in F18.
* Nobody is removed from FAmSCo forcefully.
* People stepping down are not not necessarily the people that the
community would like to.
* What happens if not enough people volunteer?
I hope I haven't missed an option and managed to outline them fair and
unbiased. Please let me know if not.
Now let me express my view: Until today I was in favor of option 1, but
while writing this mail and explaining the advantages and downsides, I
have changed my mind. I am no longer convinced that option 1 is the
only way to go. Option 3 for example seems to have a lot of advantages.
However I feel there is one *very* important point we complete missed in
the meeting yesterday: The fact that we changed the group of eligible
voters. In the past only ambassadors were allowed to vote. Now
everybody who signed the Contributor License Agreement and is member of
at least one other group can vote. I feel this is a very important
* The ambassadors represent Fedora to the world and all Fedora
members should be allowed to elect their representatives. The
new FAmSCo will have a much broader base.
* We want to have more ambassadors involved in other projects. By
opening FAmSCo for more voters, we will help candidates who
earned reputation in other projects.
* Having these people on FAmSCo is a win for the ambassadors as
they can improve coordination with other groups.
This alone IHMO justifies an election ASAP, even if FAmSCo members then
do not serve the 12 month term they were elected for. I therefor prefer
option 2. It eliminates the problems of option 1 but offers nearly the
same advantages as option 3. All FAmSCo members need to run again and
will have equal chances. In addition to that, I hope that having the
new election in outside of the old schedule in F18 will raise awareness
for the new guidelines and their possibilities.
Please let me know if I missed an option or any advantages or downsides.
Not only that: Let me know what you think. If possible, we should reach
a consensus before the next IRC meeting as we have a lot of other work
More information about the famsco