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.