[FAmSCo] Transition to the new FAmSCo election guidelines

Zoltan Hoppar hopparz at gmail.com
Mon Apr 16 15:10:28 UTC 2012


For the new guidelines I think - I would like to support partially the
first option, but in most views I think option 3 has better advantages.
Longer periods can mean stability, and less fluctuation in learning curve -
and more trust between leaders, and community.


2012/4/13 Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares at gmail.com>

> Em Qui, 2012-04-12 às 19:55 +0200, Christoph Wickert escreveu:
> > 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
> > change:
> >       * 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
> > to do.
> My first option would be option #1 since we reached a majority when
> voting for the new guidelines but since some people weren't in the
> meeting I realize that this can be unfair.
> That said, I prefer option #3 because we were elected to a full year
> term and IMHO the ideal solution involves not to change the rules while
> the game is being played, neither to touch an election previously made.
> I know that this would delay the transition by one release, but things
> would run smoother that way.
> Regards,
> --
> Igor Pires Soares
> Fedora Ambassador (Brazil) - Member of FAmSCo
> Fedora I18N/L10N QA
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor
> _______________________________________________
> famsco mailing list
> famsco at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/famsco

PGP:  06853DF7
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/attachments/20120416/51cbaf62/attachment.html>

More information about the famsco mailing list