Summary of previous discussions around FOSCo

Truong Anh. Tuan tuanta at
Tue Mar 17 01:15:41 UTC 2015

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christoph Wickert" <christoph.wickert at>
> To: outreach at, council-discuss at
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:26:41 AM
> Subject: Summary of previous discussions around FOSCo

> Hi,
> the idea of FOSCo, the Fedora Outreach Steering Committee has been
> brought up before, but as there were different assumptions and ideas,
> the council asked to summarize the previous discussion.

Thanks Christoph for summarizing all up.

We have discussed a lot within FAmSCo and I personally hope to hear more
ideas from other groups.

> The general idea behind FOSCo is to strengthen our outreach by
> bundling the efforts of the ambassadors, marketing, and the design
> team.
> You can break down the previous discussion into two groups:
> 1. Discussion within FAmSCo, see
> FAmSCo agreed we want FOSCo and we want it to replace FAmSCo, and
> extend its scope to other outreach teams such as the design and
> marketing teams. I suggest we do not fall back behind this consensus.

+1. We got consensus and it must be a good start.

> 2. Discussion started by Matthew, who sent out a message to various
> mailing lists, see
> There was no feedback whatsoever on the ambassadors and design team
> lists. On the marketing list, the question of eligible voters was
> raised. FAmSCo elections were opened to CLA+1 two years ago and as the
> new body represents different FAS groups, we certainly want to keep it
> this way. The question however is if we elections at all. Having a
> more meritocratic approach was one of the ideas behind recent Fedora
> governance changes, so just like in the council, we could also have
> appointed seats.

+1. I agree.

> This brings us to the question of FOSCo's composition. At this point,
> we need to keep two things in mind:
> 1. The ambassadors are the by far biggest group. This not only means
> we need to represent a lot of people but also that they have a big
> impact on elections.
> 2. Unlike the other groups, the ambassadors project is set up in a
> very regional manner. The different regions (NA, LATAM, EMEA, APAC)
> take care of their own business in terms of event organization, budget
> etc. FAmSco only acts as an umbrella.
> I think preserving the regional approach is a must. Each region should
> appoint one representative.

Regional ambassadors are doing well. In fact, they are representatives
for community in each region, AFAICS.

> Marketing and design also need to have
> representatives to make sure communication and collaboration with the
> other teams works. This will give us 6 appointed (or indirectly
> elected) seats.

+1. Design and Marketing if two of biggest as well as most active
outreach teams beside ambassadors.
However, how about other *big* teams such as Docs, Translations?

> The question is if we also want / need to have some elected seats and
> if, how many of them. The council has two, but I think having an
> uneven number is always a good idea. Personally I think three is best
> but also the maximum because everything > 9 people in total will be
> hard to manage.

+1 for 9 people.

> I take all appointed candidates are eligible to make decisions and
> each have one vote. What about the elected ones? Do we need something
> like auxiliary seats as we have in the council?

I think it best to make all equal (similar to FAmSCo)

> There are still a lot of open questions here, e.g. the objectives,
> scope, and policies of the new body. We can borrow a lot from the
> council, e.g. the lazy consensus for decision making.

Do we need to form a team to prepare them?
If we need such a team, I would like to be one of the volunteers.

> For everything else, I suggest we discuss the questions as they arise,
> so unless people disagree, let's first discuss the composition.
> Comments, feedback?

Frankly speaking, FAmSCo is quite inactive now. I think FOSCO should be
present soon to take the chair.


More information about the outreach mailing list