On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
One particular thing of note is that Outreach is much larger in scope
than
Ambassadors has traditionally been defined. This doesn't mean we're putting
those other areas of under the _rule_ of the ambassadors' steering
committee, but we would like someone who can also help _represent_ those
concerns and act as a bridge. I was particuarly struck by Christoph
Wickert's "Advocating Fedora.next talk at Flock *, where he talked about
getting the project message down into the on-the-ground ambassadors and out,
and I've had talks with others (hi there, Andrew!) about how disconnected
it can feel right now, so hopefully this will help. And not just in one
direction — this is an important conduit for getting real-world feedback and
user experience back into the project.
We didn't discuss this in much depth on the Board, but a further idea worth
considering is expanding FAmSCo into a Fedora Outreach Steering Committee,
explicitly embracing and including all of project outreach. (Or creating a
new such committee with FAmSCo below that, but I don't think _more_
committees is necesssarily a good thing.) This would help keep the
cross-group burden from just being on one person. What do you all think?
It won't be any surprise to Matthew but for everyone's benefit I am
strongly in favor of creating a Fedora Outreach Steering Committee
that serves a similar role as FESCo but covers all the areas of
outreach. I really think this committee could help all the folks in a
wide variety of outreach roles to communicate and coordinate
activities and messages much better than we've done it in the past.
John