From Fedora Project Wiki


  • 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)


  • 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)


  • 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)


  • 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.