first of all: I don't want to attack anybody personal here. I'm very
sorry if you, Robert, or anybody else, feels attacked. This is really
not my intention! I'm trying to explain my impression of the whole thing
and some reactions I got or recognized @community.
On 02/17/2017 09:04 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
2017-02-17 16:57 GMT+01:00 Christian Dersch
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.
Can you stop picking out and quoting comments without the context? If
you speak about censorship, that's censorship.
He spoke about "nobody", and you now are saying a "few more". So,
are we talking about?
Censorship is not my own word here. I wanted to show you how some people
think about that and thus used the word they used. (And I already wrote
that I have to number for "some" and wrote that is it an impression)
> 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
We use them 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*
Please read the rule before you write anything. FAmSCo at this point
is not related to nominations. FAmSCo can nominate "whoever they think
would do a good job". My candidate was not nominated, but
unfortunately didn't reply and therefore didn't get nominated by me.
You are speaking about bad faith, and I cannot accept that at all!!!
Again, here I'm reporting about some opinions I got (I thought I already
mentioned that in my previous mail?). But to be honest it was hard for
to me understand the selection here, especially in the beginning (and
still have no 100% awareness here). I believe others don't understand
that too. Then I indeed read the rules and found that it is hard to
apply them as mentioned somewhere in a previous mail. People who voted
for the other candidates feel upset now as their candidates are not
considered. "Bad faith" is also in this context. That is why I think the
community needs some kind of explanation (short, not long tickets or
mails) to be able to get an idea of what is going on here. I want to
clear up the situation, to avoid things like bad faith, nothing else.
I have been attacked also privately (and will also not say by whom),
but if you think I can do anything alone (I'm just one out of 7 FAmSCo
members, nothing less and nothing more, keep that in mind) or am in
bad faith against anyone, just tell me and I will step down. I don't
care about that, I care just about trying to have a strong ambassador
I meant whole FAmSCo in my mail, maybe I should have written this more
clear. As I wrote I believe that everyone wants the best for Fedora. For
"bad faith" see above.
* 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
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.
We solved this in the most transparent way, keeping discussions and
tickets open and bringing this even up to the Council. I really cannot
understand what do you mean by a transparent behavior...
Maybe transparent is not the best word here as everything is open. What
I mean: There are discussions for weeks now, tickets are long, meeting
logs are long. It took me hours to really understand what is going on.
People get snippets of the situation and build their opinion without a
complete picture of the situation. OK, that always happens everyday,
everywhere. But we can lower that effect by providing information that
is short enough to read within some minutes and that is easier to get
(in sense of understandaing) IMHO it would be nice if FAmSCo writes
short reports about the situation in general and the progress to the
ambassadors mailing list (or is there a better place?). This would
really help to get more objective opinions as it is easier to get the
situation. Of course there always will be other opinions, but that's not
a result of missing (in sense of people did not read the whole stuff)
information anymore and thus fine and especially a different case.