From Fedora Project Wiki
 
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Introduction ==
+
== Candidates ==
 +
* ''Candidates must self-nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki.''
 +
* I suggest that wiki editing is closed on this dead line, so people have to make complete submision before dead line. The nomination have to follow one explicite order; either alphabetically or cronologically. I am not in favor or any rule, but I like to have a guideline for that --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC). '''Two different experiences.'''I complained about both cases on mailing list, so I feel that I have to be coherent and sustain my complaints now that this matter is being discussed. I was not being a candidate when those events took place:
 +
** '''Case A:''' One person write his or her name just before deadline to secure his or her nomination. This is like putting a foot on the door to avoid be left out. Not every body will look the history on editing to find out this. I suggest that is forbidden, but I will be happy if we said that this is acceptable to everybody, as at this point people may think that they can not put a proper statement before deadline and not participate because of that.
 +
** '''Case B:''' Ask people to use one specific order (alphabetically or cronologically). I have seen a list of candidates to start growing appending last to come at the bottom, and then suddenly two newcomers wrote their nominations on top. Again, not every body will be watching this daily to notice, and almost no one will check the editing history. I think is rude, and there is no guideline opposing to this behaviour. --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
* Making the wiki page immutable makes sense, however it is a technical requirement that does not need be to codified in the policy. I don't think the order really matters either. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
* Please don't set any details that will conflict with the general election schedule. Nominations end way before 3 days prior to the election as set every election cycle by the general rules. Please consider something more like "Candidates must self-nominate in accordance with the published election schedule ..." instead. --[[User:inode0|inode0]] 18:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
* Alphabetical order would be practical and suitable. However an election wrangler should be appointed and he/she will maintain the nomination page as required. --[[User:Bckurera|Bckurera]] 20:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  
[[FAmSCo]] currently suffers form a few organizational problems and some of them are caused be the way how FAmSCo is constituted. We need to change the [[FAmSCo election rules]] to address them.
+
== Eligibility ==
 +
* Contributors who are members of the ambassadors group are eligible to run for open seats on FAmSCo.
 +
* Contributors who are CLA+1 are eligible to vote in FAmSCo elections.
 +
--[[User:inode0|inode0]] 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  
== Problems overview ==
+
* Contributors who are members of the ambassadors group are eligible to vote. (''The voters should have to have a clear understanding on FAm procedures and tasks. Otherwise the voting will be in favor of the popularity.'')
# FAmSCo does not have enough (active) members
+
--[[User:Bckurera|Bckurera]] 20:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
# Lack of consistency
 
# When a new FAmSCo is elected, it needs time to catch up with business and become fully operational
 
# Missing announcements
 
  
== Proposed changes ==
+
== Transitioning to FAmSCo elections each release ==
 +
* Next election have 7 open seats with the contributors finishing 1-4 getting 2 release terms and those finishing 5-7 getting 1 release terms. Then we'll have elections every release for either 3 or 4 open seats. --[[User:inode0|inode0]] 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  
=== Not enough members ===
+
== Filling Vacant Seats ==
  
'''Problem:''' FAmSCo does not have enough (active) members
+
* At Blacksburg we already agreed on not filling up the vacant seeds with runner-up candidates from the previous election ''according to their rank in the voting''. [[JohnRose]] proposed to simply appoint vacant seats, this is also what the board does. [[ChristophWickert]] however would like to have the runner-up candidates ''considered'' first. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  
'''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
+
* [[IgorSoares]] suggests that a time factor should be considered before filling seats up. If a seat becomes vacant a month before the election there would be no need to appoint someone or to fill it with a runner-up candidate from last election. In one or two months there isn't much that a new member can accomplish, and FAmSCo could wait until the next election. [[User:Igor|Igor]] 16:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  
''"There are 7 seats on FAmSCo, of which 5 must be filled at all times."''
+
== Misconduct ==
 +
* In order to remove somebody, do we need an unanimous vote or only an absolute majority? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
* Should removed members be excluded from the next elections? The current rules include: ''If an election becomes necessary upon member removal, the member cannot run for this election, but the removed member CAN run for the next orderly election.'' --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 +
* I think that we need a working definition of what is repeated absence --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
** At Blacksburg we were in favor of not giving a definition, we even considered to go with only the term ''serious misconduct or negligence'' because repeated absence is a form os misconduct, too. I doubt that a clear definition will help us here. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
** Please do not over-complicate things. Just have a look at the last FAmSCo. Do we agree that Rahul and Larry were repeatedly absent, even if we have no definition of "repeated absence"? We are not talking about missing the meeting two or three times here and even if this was the case, this would be sorted out by FAmSCo or the chair before someone gets removed.
 +
** I do really feel that we need a definition on "Repeated Absence". However this should nt be strictly stands for not attending the meetings but negligence of the duty/ responsibility as a member of FAmSCo. Attending FAmSCo meetings only go nowhere but active participation for FAmSCo duties and regional matters should be the concern. IMO, "Repeated Absence" can be termed as not attending 3 consecutive meetings with no regret notice. However the recommendation of the regional FAm's should be taken into the account before a decision is made by the FAmSCo/ chair. --[[User:Bckurera|Bckurera]] 20:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  
"Below 5" means 4. For 7 seats, this is just the number to constitute a quorum. If one of the 4 remaining members then misses a meeting, FAmSCo is no longer quorate. 
+
== Reminders ==
 +
* FESCo policy claims: ''"A reminder mail to those who are eligible to vote but haven't done so will be sent three days before the close of the election."'' Do we really do this? I don't know because I always vote on time. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 +
** I remember reading this kind of emails sent from the election wrangler --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
*** And how does the election wrangler know who voted or not? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
** I think FESCo sends a reminder to one or more mailing lists, not to individuals. --[[User:inode0|inode0]] 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC) This is the kind of email that I reacll--[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 21:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  
'''Proposed solution:''' Don't wait until FAmSCo becomes quorate but fill seats as needed with the people who ran in the last elections but did not make it.
+
== Too long ==
  
 +
I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long and if some parts overlap, e.g. parts of 'Members' with 'Filling Vacant Seats'.. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  
=== Inactive members don't step down ===
+
== Embargoed countries ==
 +
* We may consider that resident is best word that citizen? If you are citizien from X living abroad that makes you non eligible? In the other hand, if you are living in X no matter your citinzenship most likely there will be problems --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
** I think this is a legal problem and I guess that ''citizen'' is more accurate. Say you are an American living in an embargoed country, that shouldn't be a problem. Let's ask Spot! --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
*** I have talked to Spot at FOSDEM and it's definitely citizenship that matters, not residence. This means that "citizen" is correct and must not be changed. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  
'''Problem:''' Inactive members don't step down.
+
== Fedora Board Representation ==
  
'''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
+
From what i learned in both instances (and the example that we see in Christoph Wickert) i think it is valuable that FAmSCo is represented in the Fedora Board and attends their "private" meetings and mailing lists etc.! i can imagine several possibilities: e.g. the FAmSCo Chair automatically gets appointed to the Fedora Board in the Role of an Liason - or FAmSco is electing this liason. Of course this is also a board topic that has to be approved by them.
 
 
''"A supplementary election must be called immediately if number of active committee members drops below 5 in order to fill the committee's size back up to 7."''
 
 
 
A supplementary election is quite a lot of work and takes time. Nobody wants to be responsible for another election, so inactive members remain part of FAmSCo.
 
 
 
'''Proposed solution:''' Fill seats with the as needed with people who didn't make it in the last election.
 
 
 
=== Lack of consistency ===
 
 
 
'''Problem:''' Lack of consistency.
 
 
 
'''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
 
 
 
''"FAmSCo members are elected for a term of two (2) major releases of Fedora, unless an election is called early by the Chairperson of the committee, an absolute majority vote of FAmSCo, or by the Fedora Project Board."''
 
 
 
'''Proposed solution:''' Don't elect all 7 seats once a year but have two elections a year where only 3 or 4 seats are up for election.
 
 
 
 
 
=== New FAmSCo not operational ===
 
 
 
'''Problem:''' When people get elected, they need time to find their way into FAmSCo.
 
 
 
'''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
 
 
 
''"FAmSCo members are elected for a term of two (2) major releases of Fedora [...]"
 
 
 
'''Proposed solution:''' By electing half of the seats every 6 months we make sure that only half of FAmSCo can get replaced. NEw members will be introduced to their work by old members.
 
 
 
 
 
=== Not enough candidates ===
 
 
 
'''Problem:''' FAmSCo elections require a large number of candidates and if this number cannot be reached, the elections are delayed.  
 
 
 
'''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
 
 
 
''"In order to hold an election, a minimum number of candidates are necessary. This will be the number of open seats + 25%.  If there are 7 seats available, there will need to be at least 9 candidates."''
 
 
 
'''Proposed solution:''' Don't elect all 7 at a time but only a maximum of 4. With an extra of 25% we then need 5 candidates.
 
 
 
=== Misconduct ===
 
 
 
'''Problem:''' Not sure if this is really a problem, because we didn't have to remove anybody form FAmSCo until now. Nevertheless the fact that the [[Board]] can remove an elected member from FAmSCo is a problem with the constitution.
 
 
 
'''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
 
 
 
''"Members can be removed from the committee for misconduct by the Fedora Project Board or by an absolute majority vote of the FAmSCo."''
 
 
 
The board is an elected body of Fedora, so is FAmSCo. The board should not be in the position to remove an elected member from FAmSCo, only FAmSCo should be able to do so. Currently it is unclear what happens if FAmSCo disagrees with the board.
 
 
 
'''Proposed solution:''' The board should only be able ''request'' the removal from FAmSCo and if a person really misbehaves, it shouldn't be hard to reach a consensus between FAmSCo and the board.
 

Latest revision as of 20:44, 16 March 2012

Candidates

  • Candidates must self-nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki.
  • I suggest that wiki editing is closed on this dead line, so people have to make complete submision before dead line. The nomination have to follow one explicite order; either alphabetically or cronologically. I am not in favor or any rule, but I like to have a guideline for that --Yn1v 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC). Two different experiences.I complained about both cases on mailing list, so I feel that I have to be coherent and sustain my complaints now that this matter is being discussed. I was not being a candidate when those events took place:
    • Case A: One person write his or her name just before deadline to secure his or her nomination. This is like putting a foot on the door to avoid be left out. Not every body will look the history on editing to find out this. I suggest that is forbidden, but I will be happy if we said that this is acceptable to everybody, as at this point people may think that they can not put a proper statement before deadline and not participate because of that.
    • Case B: Ask people to use one specific order (alphabetically or cronologically). I have seen a list of candidates to start growing appending last to come at the bottom, and then suddenly two newcomers wrote their nominations on top. Again, not every body will be watching this daily to notice, and almost no one will check the editing history. I think is rude, and there is no guideline opposing to this behaviour. --Yn1v 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Making the wiki page immutable makes sense, however it is a technical requirement that does not need be to codified in the policy. I don't think the order really matters either. --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't set any details that will conflict with the general election schedule. Nominations end way before 3 days prior to the election as set every election cycle by the general rules. Please consider something more like "Candidates must self-nominate in accordance with the published election schedule ..." instead. --inode0 18:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Alphabetical order would be practical and suitable. However an election wrangler should be appointed and he/she will maintain the nomination page as required. --Bckurera 20:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Eligibility

  • Contributors who are members of the ambassadors group are eligible to run for open seats on FAmSCo.
  • Contributors who are CLA+1 are eligible to vote in FAmSCo elections.

--inode0 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Contributors who are members of the ambassadors group are eligible to vote. (The voters should have to have a clear understanding on FAm procedures and tasks. Otherwise the voting will be in favor of the popularity.)

--Bckurera 20:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Transitioning to FAmSCo elections each release

  • Next election have 7 open seats with the contributors finishing 1-4 getting 2 release terms and those finishing 5-7 getting 1 release terms. Then we'll have elections every release for either 3 or 4 open seats. --inode0 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Filling Vacant Seats

  • At Blacksburg we already agreed on not filling up the vacant seeds with runner-up candidates from the previous election according to their rank in the voting. JohnRose proposed to simply appoint vacant seats, this is also what the board does. ChristophWickert however would like to have the runner-up candidates considered first. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • IgorSoares suggests that a time factor should be considered before filling seats up. If a seat becomes vacant a month before the election there would be no need to appoint someone or to fill it with a runner-up candidate from last election. In one or two months there isn't much that a new member can accomplish, and FAmSCo could wait until the next election. Igor 16:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Misconduct

  • In order to remove somebody, do we need an unanimous vote or only an absolute majority? --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Should removed members be excluded from the next elections? The current rules include: If an election becomes necessary upon member removal, the member cannot run for this election, but the removed member CAN run for the next orderly election. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that we need a working definition of what is repeated absence --Yn1v 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • At Blacksburg we were in favor of not giving a definition, we even considered to go with only the term serious misconduct or negligence because repeated absence is a form os misconduct, too. I doubt that a clear definition will help us here. --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Please do not over-complicate things. Just have a look at the last FAmSCo. Do we agree that Rahul and Larry were repeatedly absent, even if we have no definition of "repeated absence"? We are not talking about missing the meeting two or three times here and even if this was the case, this would be sorted out by FAmSCo or the chair before someone gets removed.
    • I do really feel that we need a definition on "Repeated Absence". However this should nt be strictly stands for not attending the meetings but negligence of the duty/ responsibility as a member of FAmSCo. Attending FAmSCo meetings only go nowhere but active participation for FAmSCo duties and regional matters should be the concern. IMO, "Repeated Absence" can be termed as not attending 3 consecutive meetings with no regret notice. However the recommendation of the regional FAm's should be taken into the account before a decision is made by the FAmSCo/ chair. --Bckurera 20:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminders

  • FESCo policy claims: "A reminder mail to those who are eligible to vote but haven't done so will be sent three days before the close of the election." Do we really do this? I don't know because I always vote on time. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I remember reading this kind of emails sent from the election wrangler --Yn1v 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • And how does the election wrangler know who voted or not? --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think FESCo sends a reminder to one or more mailing lists, not to individuals. --inode0 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC) This is the kind of email that I reacll--Yn1v 21:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Too long

I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long and if some parts overlap, e.g. parts of 'Members' with 'Filling Vacant Seats'.. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --Cwickert 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Embargoed countries

  • We may consider that resident is best word that citizen? If you are citizien from X living abroad that makes you non eligible? In the other hand, if you are living in X no matter your citinzenship most likely there will be problems --Yn1v 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think this is a legal problem and I guess that citizen is more accurate. Say you are an American living in an embargoed country, that shouldn't be a problem. Let's ask Spot! --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I have talked to Spot at FOSDEM and it's definitely citizenship that matters, not residence. This means that "citizen" is correct and must not be changed. --Cwickert 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fedora Board Representation

From what i learned in both instances (and the example that we see in Christoph Wickert) i think it is valuable that FAmSCo is represented in the Fedora Board and attends their "private" meetings and mailing lists etc.! i can imagine several possibilities: e.g. the FAmSCo Chair automatically gets appointed to the Fedora Board in the Role of an Liason - or FAmSco is electing this liason. Of course this is also a board topic that has to be approved by them.