On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Miller
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 03:08:46PM +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
> And that's the main reason why as an actual FAmSCo member I'm strongly
> suggesting to keep elections as planned by our rules. And yes, let's add to
> the main responsibilities of the new elected members, they have to play an
> *active* role in making FOSCo happen ASAP, working together with the
> Council or CommOps to sync out the necessary tasks.
> Does this sound more reasonable for you?
Just to reiterate from when I helped (?) start all this mess, I want to
see several things:
* Ambassadors — and therefore FAmSco — is very focused on traditional
Linux events and on Linux User Groups. We need to expand beyond that.
* Connect Ambassadors more closely to marketing, design, translation,
docs, and etc.
* Have somewhere that's a natural home — as well as governance and
leadership — for the parts of the project that are outside of
The first two have been expected out of the Ambassadors, if not
actually written down. "Fedora Ambassadors" came after the fact ie.
individuals who were already continuously contributing were sought out
to become the first group of "Ambassadors". Since then, the
program/effort has undergone a bunch of changes but the basic
requirements haven't morphed much. If Ambassadors are not interacting
across teams, this needs to be addressed and encouraged to happen.
Otherwise, the entire point of being the "face of Fedora" and routes
to on-board of potential contributors falls flat.
A number of the Fedora Ambassadors are also participants across
programming and 'maker' communities. At least in India, they span
across programming languages, orchestration and configuration
management, sysadmin, DevOps and other groups/SIGs etc. This allows
the Fedora message to be present to the largest possible audience. If
FAmSCo is narrowly focused, a review of the sponsorship approvals
would indicate the higher proportion of UG and traditional Linux
events. And it should be encouraged to be do a more diverse set of
So, if the advantages of renaming could be explained more in terms of
benefits accrued and whether those can actually be achieved by the
overhaul of the existing processes, it would be easier to comprehend.
I orginally called this "outreach" (as I was thinking of
activities as largely facing out into the world), but I take Remy's
point that this has a bad collision with "outreach" as used
specifically about diversity. So if anyone has a better word, I'd love
to hear it. Fedora Non-Engineering Steering Committee? :)
And this would be a novel way to create schism. I'm not sure I like
this trend I see through the decisions - "Flock is a better FUDCon;
"Non Engineering" (*). Being partisan and implicitly divisive is not
useful in the long run. I am sure this is not the intent, but what
gets written and discussed seems to drive home that point.
(*) the history of the Language/Translation infrastructure has a
particular incident that has its origins in the lack of consultation
with the deemed "non engineering" groups. Let's learn from that and
not repeat it under a new banner.