On 02/17/2017 03:06 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
That's your opinion, but that's not written in any of our
rules and
would therefore not be clean at all! You also should not speak for the
whole ambassador group (minus two or three)...
You can agree or not agree with FAmSCo's decision, but you cannot
expect we will ever have a full consensus of 700 ambassadors.
True. But IMHO he
wanted to mention that there are some more ambassadors
who are sceptical (don't know what "some" means in reality, we would
have to ask). Of course with so many people there are always different
opinions and it is good to have them.
FAmSCo cannot do anything more than following the rules we actually
have, and although someone says this does not apply to the vacant
seats rule, we had a Council decision which recommended to apply it,
and we have a clear sentence in the wiki: "If FAmSCo does not have all
its seats filled due to members leaving or other lack,..."
*other lack* means everything else, so that's the case here.
I think we replied to the request of clarifying the process and the
outcome of our meetings and trac decisions, pointing you to all the
sources we opened or discussed. We explained why we are applying these
rules and cannot do anything more. Speculating about something which
is not clearly written in our policies will only end up in an endless
discussion. If we want to move forward and get back to business we
needed to decide quickly, applying the rules we have. And that's what
we did.
Well, first of all the clarification came too late and only because I
decided to request it. I was weary of discussions with other ambassadors
where nobody really knew what is going on. That resulted in wrong
assumptions and such things. It took me quite a while to get into the
stuff and, as I wrote in my initial mail, there where still open
questions. I got the answers quite fast here, but the discussions were
already ongoing.
I see that FAmSCo is following the rules and council decision, but the
rules have some scope you should be aware of and use in a wise way:
* candidates are fredlima, gnokii and mitzie. They are three of the
candidates @election. What about the other candidates? We do not know
how the election would have gone if candidate list would have been
valid. And numbers of votes were quite close to each other. I really
expect an answer for that selection, people who voted for other
candidates could interpret that as censorship! I really believe that
everyone just wants the best for Fedora, but FAmSCo has to be much more
carefully here. I got these censorship voices @community (again, no
names to be discreet) and we *must* avoid that.
* It should be in the interest of FAmSCo to solve that issue in a
transparent (by means of well information for community) and clean (by
considering all candidates or even a new election) way. Of course there
will be still unhappy people because they would have seen different
results. But then you are on the safe side and can say "Hey, that's
democracy". Don't get me wrong, I don't want to blame anyone here, but I
feel some people are already stopping to trust in (the shiny new) FAmSCo
and that would be *really* bad :(
That is all within the scope of applying the vacant seat rule, as you
already know there are others who consider complete new elections.
Again, I really believe that everybody wants the best for the community,
but I feel that I have to draw your attention to the community voices I
got. My intention is to get things clear to them. But that is also
FAmSCo's task and for example some information on mailing list(s) could
help the people here.
Greetings,
Christian