[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Ambassadors] Are ambassadors happy with range voting for FAmSCo?

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, inode0 wrote:

I'm not sure about the election history of FAmSCo, maybe someone who has been around a while can explain how it used to work, but I'm guessing range voting has been used in the past two FAmSCo elections. Are ambassadors happy with this method of electing the ambassador leadership?

Aside from the voting method, are there other things related to the election or composition of FAmSCo that ambassadors think would improve either the process or the constitution of the steering committee?

I have no strong opinion about the manner in which the election is conducted, and looking over the rules, which are now a few years old, is a fair thing to do.

I'm a bit hesitant to ask FAMSCO itself to modify the rules by which it is elected. I wonder, John, if you'd be interested in putting together a new proposal that could in some way (to be figured out) be discussed and then potentially adopted.

Something like this, while worth looking at every now and then, also seems like the perfect trap for everyone to spend all their time debating the election rules rather than a similar amount of effort actually making progress on things that aren't sort of meta-project. I think that having a small group of people who are passionate do some thinking, and make some recommendations is the best way to go.

It would make me very sad indeed if one of the biggest topics in Ambassadors over the next little while is the manner by which FAMSCO is elected, because it would suggest to me that we're spending too much time on meta-project stuff and not enough on actual progress.

Have I managed to straddle the fence appropriately?  :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]