On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr
> 2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com>:
>> Hi Council and Ambassadors,
>> I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should
>> be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing
>> elections for this committee.
>> As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by
>> FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of
>> service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other
>> group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was
>> explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo
>> team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a
>> full replacement for it.
>> However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic
>> . I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common
>> agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for
>> now or we have other solution.
>> - 17:23:27
> Thank you Jan for this open discussion, I'm adding here some more
> First of all FAmSCo is not dead and never has been officially dismissed, but
> FAmSCo decided months ago to hand all its repsonibilities over to FOSCo,
> which was planned as an even bigger committee, and which should have
> included also the Ambassador's activities. Therefor we reduced the activity
> and after some meetings without reaching a quorum FAmSCo decided to act only
> through the Trac until new elections would happen or FOSCo will start its
> Many thing happened in the meanwhile and we are going towards a new and
> hopefully better budgeting process (thanks to all who worked on it and who
> are discussing it), but as you said this is not the only responsibility
> FAmSCo actually has. Unfortunately FAmSCo missed some of its deadlines,
> there is for example the EMEA FAD planning, release parties, F23 media and
> other stuff (which in the end happened partially but not in a coordinated
> way as before).
> That's why I would welcome, unless we will not reach the minimum number of 7
> candidates, new elections. These new memebers could give continuity to
> FAmSCo's activities and the big ambassadors group, on the other hand they
> could actively help the integration of the actual FAmSCo responsibilities
> into the Council, FOSCo or whatever.
> Canceling the Ambassadors Steering Committee without replacing *all* its
> activities is not the best way if we don't want to loose some parts of the
> community, so IMO let's do elections and find the best solution to pass over
> all the stuff and try to represent _all_ regions in the body who will take
> over in the future the FAmSCo job.
Forgive me, but I have not followed the ambassador side of things for
a while. If FAmSCo isn't actually meeting (per the IRC conversation)
and isn't technically a thing any longer, what is the elected body to
do? Start meeting again?
I do not disagree with you at all that we need people performing the
tasks you highlight, but I'm not sure having an elected body to do
them is necessary. Once they are elected, are we to restart FAmSCo,
or would they only serve until FOSCo actually exists? Perhaps
volunteers would be better than elected members of a zombie
council-discuss mailing list
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community.
I'm not against FAMSCo elections, but if there were conversations
about elections (other than FLOCK sessions) this is the first I have
heard about them.
I'm here to support what the community wants, and if the community
wants to revive FAMSCo,and Fedora Leadership is on board with that (no
-1's so far), then I will support that decision.
For those who haven't done this sort of thing before (like me), the
official rules can be found here:
So, firstly, if we're going to go through with this, we need enough
candidates to be nominated. Officially, we have until November 23rd,
which is this coming Monday, to secure at least 9 Candidates (7
Candidates, PLUS 25%, which is 2, rounding up.)
It would be kinda weird since CommOps is helping to handle all the
election interviews and communication, but if we really really needed
a ninth Candidate on Monday, I would consider throwing my hat into the
ring and running for FAMSCo if it would help to make this happen, but
only if necessary.
According to the wiki, only ambassadors can vote, and only ambassadors
can be nominated for FAMSCo.
I'm in full support for there to be reestablished ambassador-specific
leadership, but I agree with jzb and others on this thread that this
election be had with the understanding that FAMSCo is helping to
create this new 'larger Fedora representative body' that includes
other project stakeholders and teams, and is scoped beyond
on-the-ground representation at specific events. (I've got a few ideas
on this that are being formalized and organized I'll be sharing
soonlyish.More on that later.)
Best of luck securing the nominations, I'll be keeping an eye on this
thread moving forward.
Fedora Community Lead & Council