[Ambassadors] Active/Inactive Ambassadors

[Jeffrey Tadlock]

Francesco Ugolini wrote:
> Ok, first of all, Honored Ambassadors will be permanent Ambassadors,
> they will have the same functions of all the other Ambassadors, the only
> difference is that their status will not changed. I know that people
> would think it would be a nonsense status, but if you consider that many
> ambassadors work hardly every week, month (like you), you can understand
> the importance to give a special status to this people.

I still don't see how further splitting ambassadors does anything to
help.  What if an honored Ambassador becomes inactive after time?  Let
people's work speak for themselves.  The Ambassadors have more important
things to work on than get caught up in another layer of titles.

I fail to see how giving special status for people helps the Ambassador
project.

> Second point: i want to reply to the people who told that many
> ambassadors are working underground. I want to remember that in a
> community we have to share our experience and we have to report our
> activities, if it would be not such, we would be people who share same
> interest but work alone.

Here I agree, sharing experience is good and the more people sharing
what they are doing the better.  However, kicking people out of the
Ambassadors program is *not* the way to encourage participation.  Let's
think of more positive means to encourage communication.

> I think, as Gerold said, we have to understand why people don't share
> their ideas, experience etc... with the other people. I want to
> remember, once again, we are a community: what one does, is what the
> community does.

This understanding is important.  Focusing energy on understanding why
people might not participate in various communication mediums seems to
be a more productive approach than coming up with "honorary" titles and
kicking people out of the Ambassadors program.

--Jeffrey