On Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 18:54, Jan Kurik wrote: Who is "we" that "decided" to cancel the running elections? What were the reasons for this "decision"? I object to this strongly. It doesn't look like this "decision" was made through an open process as is the usual Fedora way. I can't even find a Council ticket for this or a thread in the council-discuss mailing list. I'm afraid I'm losing confidence that the current Council is capable of leading Fedora if they cannot even hold an election according to the current documented rules without breaking them in more than one way. I haven't checked if elections to the Council and Mindshare were organized according to policy (maybe I should!), but with FESCo elections, the following were broken: 1. Candidate nominations were accepted later than 3 days before the voting period started. This contradicts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy#Candidates 2. Candidates whose interviews weren't ready for publication before the start of the voting period were not disqualified. This contradicts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations Due to not having enough (number of open seats + 25%) candidates on the day before the voting period, the nomination period was extended by 3 days. Arguably, the extension should have happened 3 days earlier and should have been made longer than 3 days because extending by 3 days on the eve of the voting period start still doesn't give anyone a chance to be nominated according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy#Candidates . I'd have extended by at least a week, also due to infrastructure instability this week. The interview readiness deadline was, suprisingly, extended by a week, allowing candidates who couldn't be bothered to write their interviews to be voted in anyway. Nothing was said about disqualifying candidates who'd fail to publish their interviews despite getting votes in the first few days of the elections. Last but not least, I wonder why all elections are being cancelled instead of just FESCo. This was not explained, either. With sad regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

Il 08/dic/2017 12:39 AM, "Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski" < dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; ha scritto: On Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 18:54, Jan Kurik wrote: Who is "we" that "decided" to cancel the running elections? What were the reasons for this "decision"? I object to this strongly. It doesn't look like this "decision" was made through an open process as is the usual Fedora way. I can't even find a Council ticket for this or a thread in the council-discuss mailing list. I'm afraid I'm losing confidence that the current Council is capable of leading Fedora if they cannot even hold an election according to the current documented rules without breaking them in more than one way. I haven't checked if elections to the Council and Mindshare were organized according to policy (maybe I should!), but with FESCo elections, the following were broken: 1. Candidate nominations were accepted later than 3 days before the voting period started. This contradicts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy#Candidates 2. Candidates whose interviews weren't ready for publication before the start of the voting period were not disqualified. This contradicts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations Due to not having enough (number of open seats + 25%) candidates on the day before the voting period, the nomination period was extended by 3 days. Arguably, the extension should have happened 3 days earlier and should have been made longer than 3 days because extending by 3 days on the eve of the voting period start still doesn't give anyone a chance to be nominated according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy#Candidates . I'd have extended by at least a week, also due to infrastructure instability this week. The interview readiness deadline was, suprisingly, extended by a week, allowing candidates who couldn't be bothered to write their interviews to be voted in anyway. Nothing was said about disqualifying candidates who'd fail to publish their interviews despite getting votes in the first few days of the elections. Last but not least, I wonder why all elections are being cancelled instead of just FESCo. This was not explained, either. With sad regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ ambassadors mailing list -- ambassadors(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ambassadors-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org It think you stated your opinion more than once now and I also know "we" (Council) gave you all the reasons for any decision we took in public. We wanted to try something new and it didn't work, it is not constructive at all to continue with the same concerns neither by deleting interviews in sign of protest. I also think you know perfectly why all elections have been cancelled, interviews were missing for several candidates and if we would have cancelled just FESCo you probably would complain about the decision because we treat bodies in different ways. So, let's be constructive and eventually make proposals, we all are part of a community, we are not politicians or either role, but want to have equal elections with a smooth process. If you have ideas to improve that (and I think you already did in some way) we will and want to take that in consideration. We also have some new tickets in Council pagure too about that. Thanks. Kind regards == Robert Mayr (robyduck)