On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:40:29PM -0500, inode0 wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Christoph Wickert > <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The reason we did this are the new FAmSCo election guidelines [1] that > > were ratified 2 weeks ago [2]. Instead of having all 7 seats open for > > election once a year we want half of them to be elected with every > > release. This is exactly what the board and FESCo do. It will improve > > continuity and make it easier for newcomers to get used to FAmSCo > > business. More about the motivation can be found at [3]. > > While I agree with that motivation I think we should also follow > FESCo's example of how to do an orderly transition without overturning > the results of a previous election. The idea that four people, > regardless of their composition, can overturn election results for > three others I find pretty offensive. > > > In order to make this change happen, we need to make a cut at some > > point. No matter if it happens sooner or later, some members will only > > be able to serve FAmSCo for 6 months. > > There is a big difference between the electorate deciding who those > members are and four members of FAmSCo deciding. > > >> It also just so > >> happens that the ones that voted for that proposal are the ones that would > >> benefit by that proposal by not having to stand for reelection at the next > >> election. > > I don't agree with what this suggests. FAmSCo is clearly trying to > make FAmSCo a more productive governance body for the benefit of > Fedora. > I agree with inode0 in both of these quotes. Here's how that affects my view: The action of disolving FAMSCo to me would mean removing all the members of FAMSCo from their positions effective immediately upon the Board voting. To me, this is too harsh a measure for something that I perceive as being done in good faith. Even though I dont see why FAMSCo feels the need to rush something through rather than having a transition, I don't think their motivation is to amass the powers and responsibilities of FAMSCo in their hands but to make Fedora better. Knowing that, I would hope that FAMSCo members would also see that merely having good intentions is not enough. One must also consider what effects one's actions will have on others. In this case, I think FAMSCo looked at the concrete effects of their decision (FAMSCo may have better turnout and make better decisions in the future due to having knowledge of past FAMSCo's carry over with those Board members who have served before) but didn't assign enough value to the perception that their decision leaves in the minds of others. While this decision may have been the most expeditious choice for getting the new guidelines into use the soonest, it was certainly not the choice that is the most fair to the electorate or to the elected. It leaves those who voted for it open to the perception of being power hungry and bending the spirit of the rules to meet their own agenda. To me, that sort of taint will cause more harm than the delay caused by having one final election to bootstrap the new Guidelines into effect. With all of that in mind, I do not think the Board's first reaction to this should be to "dissolve FAMSCo". However, I would definitely ask that FAMSCo reconsider their decision on how to implement the new Guidelines. Option #2 (I believe it was the same in the meeting. I'm going by the email right now[1]_) was to have all seats re-elected at the F18 election with the 4 highest vote getters serving 1 year and the other 3 seats serving for 6 months. This would make the transition swiftly while also taking care of the perception of unfairness. This, I think, might be a good compromise between Option 1 and 3 which received votes at the meeting. From some of the discussion between nb and cwickert at the very end of the meeting I think that FAMSCo is going to re-evaluate this. If so, someone should make an announcement to that effect and (as was noted in the meeting) it should probably receive discussion on the ambassadors list. If that's not the case, please open a ticket for the Board so they can decide if they want to step in officially or not. If such a ticket is opened, please include any time constraints (for instance, someone mentioned that the F18 FAMSCo elections are scheduled to be announced soon) so we know how quickly we need to resolve this. -Toshio .. [1]_: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/2012-April/001044.html
Attachment:
pgp_b_t7fWZUY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
