On 4/9/07, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Francesco Ugolini wrote:
> Stay sure, we don't want to "kill" people, we know the different
needs
> of each ambassador. We want to shake people that do nothing.
Why?
Why do we want to "shake people that do nothing"? What harm do they do?
And what's to say that someone who does nothing today won't be someone who
does something vitally important later? And what's your threshhold for
"activity" -- somebody says "I'm active"?
The *only* effect of *any* inactivity policy will be to announce to
people, "we don't want you, go away."
My $0.02: once somebody says "I am a Fedora ambassador," then they are a
Fedora ambassador, FOR LIFE. Until (a) they say "no thanks, I'm not an
ambassador anymore," or (b) they do something that disgraces Fedora, and
FAMSCO drums them out.
=====
So let me back up and ask a question. What's the *real* goal here?
Is the goal to recognize our best ambassadors?
Is the goal to know who can be "counted upon" to get stuff done?
What are we trying to accomplish with the active/inactive proposal?
--g
--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"
All,
I'm sorry I was away from this whole discussion.
It's time for me to step in stop this once for all.
Yes, Greg is *absolutely* correct. This entire discussion is not
helping our project but tearing us apart. I even noticed some of us
planning to leave the project because this discussion.
I *urge* you stop this non-productive proposal and I would to hear
more productive ideas.
Please consider this is my last call to end this discussion.
Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee Chair
--
Thomas Chung
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung