Hi Till, thanks for bringing up this counterpoint. On 6/6/19 4:39 PM, Till Maas wrote: > in general this proposal appears to me to be over regulating things. > > There are already not enough candidates most of the time. Since there is > always only one seat up for election for Council and it would be sad to > loose good candidates for other elected bodies because they want to take > their chances for the Council. IMHO it would be enough to ask them not > to accept the seat at another body if someone wins for different bodies. > But since it is not really a problem in practice, it seems to me that > our time would be better spent with other things than discussing a > policy that has only a limited practical effect. > I see this as a positive change to election policy for three reasons: 1. Communicates an expectation of time commitment and responsibility 2. Asks candidates to make a commitment of their time and energy 3. Improves equality of roles already represented with a Council seat The first point communicates an expectation. By limiting Council nominees to only run for the Council, as Ben said previously, it suggests this role is a real commitment. This isn't to say FESCo and Mindshare are trivial commitments, but serving multiple committees is a difficult commitment. A potential outcome of this policy is an elected person is a more active and engaged participant of the elected body they serve. The second point also asks candidates to make a commitment too. I see this asking a candidate to make a critical decision of where their time and energy is best spent. This is a hard decision to make. Someone can have qualities that make them a good fit for multiple elected positions. But this policy change asks them to make that hard decision and prioritize their time and energy. This shares the same potential outcome as the previous point: an elected person is a more active and engaged participant of the elected body they serve. The third point (and most important to me) is this improves equality of representation in the overall Fedora Council. Currently, both Mindshare and FESCo committees select a Council representative from their elected bodies. If someone serves both as a member of another committee and on the Council, it effectively gives that committee an additional representative. I do not suspect bad intent when this happens, but a consequence leaving out the perspective of someone else. The Fedora community is broad and multifaceted. The other elected committees represent large groups of contributors and the type of contributions they make, but there are also people who contribute to Fedora on the outsides of those committees. A potential outcome is leaving room for a different perspective to be included at the decision-making table. >> Candidates elected to a Council seat who are currently serving on >> another elected body must resign their previous position. > > How about making this a recommendation instead of a strict requirement? > Another question: What about elected bodies in other organizations? What > about other areas of participation just as packaging or being an > Ambassador? IMHO it should be the call of the community member what to > commit for. > Here, I agree with you: I think it should be the call of the community member to decide what they commit for. These were my initial thoughts when I read the policy announcement. I hope this is a useful perspective add to the conversation. -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory justinwflory.com TZ=America/Chicago Pronouns: he/him/his
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
