Hi, the idea of FOSCo, the Fedora Outreach Steering Committee has been brought up before, but as there were different assumptions and ideas, the council asked to summarize the previous discussion. The general idea behind FOSCo is to strengthen our outreach by bundling the efforts of the ambassadors, marketing, and the design team. You can break down the previous discussion into two groups: 1. Discussion within FAmSCo, see https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373 FAmSCo agreed we want FOSCo and we want it to replace FAmSCo, and extend its scope to other outreach teams such as the design and marketing teams. I suggest we do not fall back behind this consensus. 2. Discussion started by Matthew, who sent out a message to various mailing lists, see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ambassadors/2014-October/022896... There was no feedback whatsoever on the ambassadors and design team lists. On the marketing list, the question of eligible voters was raised. FAmSCo elections were opened to CLA+1 two years ago and as the new body represents different FAS groups, we certainly want to keep it this way. The question however is if we elections at all. Having a more meritocratic approach was one of the ideas behind recent Fedora governance changes, so just like in the council, we could also have appointed seats. This brings us to the question of FOSCo's composition. At this point, we need to keep two things in mind: 1. The ambassadors are the by far biggest group. This not only means we need to represent a lot of people but also that they have a big impact on elections. 2. Unlike the other groups, the ambassadors project is set up in a very regional manner. The different regions (NA, LATAM, EMEA, APAC) take care of their own business in terms of event organization, budget etc. FAmSco only acts as an umbrella. I think preserving the regional approach is a must. Each region should appoint one representative. Marketing and design also need to have representatives to make sure communication and collaboration with the other teams works. This will give us 6 appointed (or indirectly elected) seats. The question is if we also want / need to have some elected seats and if, how many of them. The council has two, but I think having an uneven number is always a good idea. Personally I think three is best but also the maximum because everything > 9 people in total will be hard to manage. I take all appointed candidates are eligible to make decisions and each have one vote. What about the elected ones? Do we need something like auxiliary seats as we have in the council? There are still a lot of open questions here, e.g. the objectives, scope, and policies of the new body. We can borrow a lot from the council, e.g. the lazy consensus for decision making. For everything else, I suggest we discuss the questions as they arise, so unless people disagree, let's first discuss the composition. Comments, feedback? Best regards, Christoph