On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John, > > thank for for sharing your thoughts with us. I do agree to some of them > but disagree to others. Unfortunately I do not have the time to explain > everything in detail now. > > On the other hand I feel an urgent need to respond. Things are a bit > out of control already. Thanks to x-posting of the initial mail, we now > have discussions on two different mailing lists. This combined with > missing or false information can do major harm to FAmSCo. > > In an attempt to calm down the situation, I hereby step down as FAmSCo > chair and declare my seat subject to the election in the F18 cycle. > > I am doing this > * carefully considering the concerns that were raised, > * to free the way to a FAmSCo election under the new election > guidelines, > * to enable more people to vote for FAmSCo, > * to give an example to other FAmSCo members, and > * because I am convinced that everybody who does good work will > get re-elected. > > I will get back to you later and then respond to your mail in more > detail. > > So long, > Christoph > > -- > ambassadors mailing list > ambassadors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors Hello, Borrowing from the other thread, Toshio explained: --- 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. --- I would like to state first that I appreciate where he is going with this thought. We have reconsidered this particular issue three (3) different times and have voted on it three (3) different times, each with the same result of option 1 winning. I do feel that the decisions we made were not for us, but for a better Fedora of the future. It's hard to do this job, anyone who's done it knows it's a lot of time and effort and I feel everyone who has participated on FAmSCo has put in a valiant effort here. It's something that I would not have taken on if not for the desire to help Fedora. It does sadden me that this issue has become so divisive. It's clear to me that this discussion will not end if all of us do not step down and start anew. Therefore, I will be following in Christoph's footsteps to make my seat available for elections in F18. I do this only if we can have the elections held in F18. If not, there is no value in causing more churn and I will stay on for my full term. It essentially leads to option #2 referred to in the meeting notes from last week's FAmSCo meeting. I do hope this move will provide the results we are all looking for and will end up in additional elections happening for the F18 cycle. Regards, Clint _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
