[FAmSCo] Elections - November 2015

Robert Mayr robyduck at fedoraproject.org
Fri Nov 6 17:22:29 UTC 2015

Hi Matthew,
this is just the result of the lack of FAmSCo over the last release cycle.
We agreed to hand over all our responsibilities to the upcoming FOSCo, but
this was at the beginning of the year.
As it looked like FOSCo was happening very soon we ecided also to go on
with the actual members until the official start of FOSCo.

2015-11-06 17:05 GMT+01:00 Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>:

> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:59:46PM +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> > Hi Tuan,
> > at Flock, we agreed we would keep FAmSCo. The new body that was
> > designed by Remy is supposed to do a lot of things that FOSCo was
> > planned to do. And there are quite a few things changing, so we agreed
> > it would not be wise to start changing FAmSCo as well.
> > I know we should have announced this, but I have had very little time
> > since Flock :-/
> Until we're able to bring a quorum of stakeholders to Flock, we
> shouldn't make final decisions there. Hammer out proposals, yes.

Well, me and Jiri asked about FOSCo because FAmSCo itself realized that
something is not going as it should (we had no meetings and tried to make
decisions through the ML).
We realized that FOSCo was still something "under construction", so we
could NOT go on anymore with actual FAmSCo composition. Therefore we
decided (yes, more than a proposal but shared with the others later) to
have new FAmSCo elections waiting of what FOSCo would be and when it would
I also posted it to our ML [1], so nobody could say he is or was not aware
of FAmSCo elections.

> I'm not necessarily opposed to keeping FAmSCo, but I'm concerned that
> it'll get in the way of:
>  a) modernizing what we're doing with our event strategy beyond
>     traditional Linux conferences
>  b) increasing non-event activities at the regional level
>  c) connecting ambassadors to marketing, translations, docs, and design
> .... but maybe it's okay. Can you help assure me? :)

Yeah, right. Personally I like the way FOSCo was planned as it involves
more teams and contributors. It's a new way of spreading the word of Fedora
and we will probably reach also another goal. Having more ambassadors
active also in other groups.
The need to go on with FAmSCo, at least for one release cycle but we plan
normal elections, comes from some actions we missed this year. There is the
F23 media, release parties, the late call for the EMEA FAD, driving mentors
in specific regions and and and. This is all caused due to the absence of
FAmSCo in the last months, and as a member I feel myself responsible for

So, just to resume, I agree with all your concerns and we absoultely *need*
a better and modern strategy, but having too many changes all at the same
time, specially for a big group as the ambassador group, could lead to
loose some of them. Ambassadors are used to have a steering committee,
although the regions got many responsibilities now and that is very good.
Let's keep them all in the Project and introduce more changes step by step.
This is what I think about having FAmSCo elections.
Otherwise, if we are able to get FOSCo done with the next elections I'm
happy too. I'm just not sure if we are able to get this done in time as it
involves many other groups.

I'm open also to a dedicated meeting on IRC about this topic if we can get
things done better and faster.


Robert Mayr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/attachments/20151106/33949a78/attachment.html>

More information about the famsco mailing list