Summary of previous discussions around FOSCo

Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert at
Mon Mar 16 18:26:41 UTC 2015


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.

The general idea behind FOSCo is to strengthen our outreach by
bundling the efforts of the ambassadors, marketing, and the design

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Comments, feedback?

Best regards,

More information about the outreach mailing list