[Ambassadors] [Discussion] Reporting template for ambassadors.

inode0 inode0 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 14:51:50 UTC 2009

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:58 AM, susmit shannigrahi
<thinklinux.ssh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> As we were just discussing this, we are getting lots of new ambassadors.
> For Fedora India, its couple of them almost every week.
> But it is time to think if we getting as much output as well.
> So how will it be to have a standard template for monthly

Hi Susmit. I would like to see this discussion broadened to include
FAmSCo and ambassadors from areas like North America who I don't think
have participated in this discussion up to now.

>From the discussion I've seen here it seems the impetus for this is to
fix a small number of situations where an ambassador perhaps did not
perform expected duties, especially troubling when it comes to
ignoring a request from the broader community. In North America I
think there is a weakness in that it is hard for the broader community
to even figure out who to contact within Fedora about whether Fedora
would like to participate in an event. These inquiries when they come
seem to almost always get redirected to the ambassadors group from
someone else who was contacted first. I think it might be good to have
these sorts of contacts be made to the larger group of ambassadors so
no one falls through the cracks.

I am hesitant to endorse monthly reporting of routine contributions.
While I see the motivation is good for asking for this I worry that
creating a burden for all those who do contribute to find out who
doesn't contribute isn't really fair to those who are contributing. If
we make being an ambassador too much like having a paid job (without
the pay) there may be unexpected negative outcomes. In order for this
reporting to be useful in determining who is and who isn't
contributing opens up a can of worms as well. It requires monitoring
the data, making judgments about it, taking actions which I presume
are punitive in nature against those deemed to be not contributing.

I will add that when FAmNA was reborn we tried to contact every
ambassador then listed for North America and the response rate was
very disappointing. Most did not respond at all to our inquiries and
encouragement that they join in the reorganization efforts. So we felt
the sting of what appears to be large numbers of people listed as
ambassadors who didn't even return an email. I can support the desire
to clean up things some so when a visitor comes to the wiki and finds
an ambassador they can at least expect a reply to an email. But I
would rather add the burden to those who seem to have left the program
rather than add it to those who are busy promoting Fedora now.

Can the FAmSCo membership folks suggest a good way to deal with this?

Thanks for bringing up one option we have Susmit. This is a festering
problem that is only going to get worse the longer we ignore it.


More information about the Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list