2015-03-16 19:26 GMT+01:00 Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi, > > the idea of FOSCo, the Fedora Outreach Steering Committee has been > brought up before, but as there were different assumptions and ideas, > the council asked to summarize the previous discussion. > > The general idea behind FOSCo is to strengthen our outreach by > bundling the efforts of the ambassadors, marketing, and the design > team. > > You can break down the previous discussion into two groups: > 1. Discussion within FAmSCo, see https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373 > FAmSCo agreed we want FOSCo and we want it to replace FAmSCo, and > extend its scope to other outreach teams such as the design and > marketing teams. I suggest we do not fall back behind this consensus. > > 2. Discussion started by Matthew, who sent out a message to various > mailing lists, see > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ambassadors/2014-October/022896.html > There was no feedback whatsoever on the ambassadors and design team > lists. On the marketing list, the question of eligible voters was > raised. FAmSCo elections were opened to CLA+1 two years ago and as the > new body represents different FAS groups, we certainly want to keep it > this way. The question however is if we elections at all. Having a > more meritocratic approach was one of the ideas behind recent Fedora > governance changes, so just like in the council, we could also have > appointed seats. > > This brings us to the question of FOSCo's composition. At this point, > we need to keep two things in mind: > 1. The ambassadors are the by far biggest group. This not only means > we need to represent a lot of people but also that they have a big > impact on elections. > 2. Unlike the other groups, the ambassadors project is set up in a > very regional manner. The different regions (NA, LATAM, EMEA, APAC) > take care of their own business in terms of event organization, budget > etc. FAmSco only acts as an umbrella. > > I think preserving the regional approach is a must. Each region should > appoint one representative. Marketing and design also need to have > representatives to make sure communication and collaboration with the > other teams works. This will give us 6 appointed (or indirectly > elected) seats. > +1 that's a way to ponderate the contribution of ambassadors while giving voice to the other groups. > The question is if we also want / need to have some elected seats and > if, how many of them. The council has two, but I think having an > uneven number is always a good idea. Personally I think three is best > but also the maximum because everything > 9 people in total will be > hard to manage. > +1 we want the new governance bodies to be driven by leaders but keeping some elected seats also allow us to bring new blood and different opinions. As I expect FOSCO to decide according lazy consensus, that means that these seats will have impact on the direction of Fedora outreach. > I take all appointed candidates are eligible to make decisions and > each have one vote. What about the elected ones? Do we need something > like auxiliary seats as we have in the council? > elected ones should be on equal footing or they're useless. No need of auxiliary seats per se. > There are still a lot of open questions here, e.g. the objectives, > scope, and policies of the new body. We can borrow a lot from the > council, e.g. the lazy consensus for decision making. > > For everything else, I suggest we discuss the questions as they arise, > so unless people disagree, let's first discuss the composition. > > Comments, feedback? > Thanks for this complete picture and your proposals. Regards, H. > Best regards, > Christoph > _______________________________________________ > council-discuss mailing list > council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
