Fedora-Council/tickets ticket #557: Guidance necessary: Join SIG and temporary memberships for the sole purpose of voting in FESCo election

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

@py0xc3 filed Fedora-Council/tickets ticket #557. Discuss here and record votes and decisions in the ticket.

Ticket text:

@@py0xc3

We had an incident in Discourse that has shown incompatibilities in the interpretations about what is allowed and what not, thus we are asking for guidance from the Council (or FESCo) to avoid conflicts in future:

When a user on Discourse has asked why they are not allowed to vote for FESCo, a Join SIG member has approached the user and offered them to temporarily add them to the Join SIG FAS group so that they can vote, and then remove them from the SIG again once they have voted (the reason the user could not vote was the CLA+1 / FPCA+1). I treated this as violation with the assumption this is an unintended abuse of powers, as this bypasses a technical restriction that was put there intentionally (original reasons for the CLA+1 restriction elaborated later by @kevin [1] - I don’t repeat/cite here), while a Join SIG member determines by personal opinion who should be allowed to vote, outside the realm of their SIG and without intention that this user becomes a real member of Join SIG, and bypassing thus an intuitive filter that avoids people to vote in critical elections who have not yet been exposed to the community beyond a limited realm, thus not found out about FAS groups (which have a subtle impact/relevance) and thus did not ask for a membership on themselves. In short, I considered it an intended filter to ensure that at least the majority of users have a perspective beyond their own nose when doing critical votes, and this was intentionally bypassed (so far the core aspects of the assumption I have been working with).

This ended up in a discussion [1] that has shown that the Join SIG member’s interpretation of this being allowed is shared among Join SIG. While Kevin provided an elaboration of the original reasons, there also seems to be no consent if/what to apply to the current case.

The Join SIG assumes this is ok and they will keep doing so because

• they are there to help, assuming this is a type of help,
• that we have to trust people implicitly,
• that we should not add/assume “intent” to CLA+1,
• adding people to FAS groups at their discretion, including temporary, is the norm all over the community

(I tried to sum up the core points of the other side here as neutral as possible, but given that this reflects not my POW, you have to consider my summaries as biased and if our opinions are relevant to the subsequent questions, please review [1] to see the points in context)

We consent that there is no consent about if that is compliant or acceptable, including which side needs Council approval for their actions/preferences (thus the ticket:)

The major questions that can be derived, and which we ask the Council to answer:

1. Does any SIG, or the Join SIG in particular, have the authority to offer temporary memberships for the sole purpose of voting for FESCo?
   → 2 sub-questions that could become relevant depending on your answer:
   1.1) Does it matter if users who didn’t ask for such a membership are actively approached?
   1.2) Can a SIG make the decision for such a temporary membership based on contributions of the realms of other SIG and based on personal opinions?

This phenomenon seems to have been not considered before, this being the first (known) case, and since this now has become agreed in Join SIG (and now also communicated pubclicly) that it is ok and intended, it is unclear if and how far this will be used more actively in future (thus how far moderators of channels will end up with this case again). I am not sure how many FESCo voters exist or if the argument of the hundreds of voters (?) is true and thus how far this can practically impact FESCo election outcomes at some point, so I leave this part out as far as it concerns me.

The more immediate case is obviously for moderation: what and to what extent shall we allow or ignore such cases, and when to intervene.

While the case makes clear that I have my opinion about this, I think there is agreement that the most important thing is to go in a common direction, whatever this is. So some clear guidance would be nice, e.g.,

1. forbid this at all, allowing SIGs only to add the members whom they see fit for their own activities as permanent members (maybe excluding the known cases of temporary memberships for wiki edits)
2. remove the CLA+1 at all, to have the same condition for all users
3. allow SIGs to temporarily add users beyond their own activities/realm for the sole purpose of voting, but then also communicate this clearly to all SIGs with an FAS group to ensure that not one SIG can disproportionately impact a critical election based on their own intuitive (voter) preferences (I do NOT want to imply any type of intentional manipulation or so! There is agreement that everyone is acting on good faith!).
4. Allowing this only to Join SIG, but creating limitations clearer than personal opinions, or limiting numbers or so (or not creating any limitations at all, making clear to moderators to allow this to Join SIG members in all circumstances)

Just some possibilities…

A side note: as far as I know, the temporary membership was intended mostly to allow wiki edits. As it is discussed if the wiki is replaced, this could be merged into a discussion if temporary memberships shall be allowed in future at all, though I do not argue in any direction about this, as I lack information if and when this is necessary (Join SIG members might correct me here).

I share this ticket link in [1] to ensure Join SIG members can review, and correct me if I summed up something wrong or so.

[1] https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/a-post-in-how-can-i-join-the-f43-fesco-election-requires-staff-attention/179007/

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

The link is available only to moderators, including Council members. Making it public would make it necessary to get +1 from all participants, who posted with the assumption of privacy. The content is not necessary to have a transparent decision making about this. Additional relevant points can be posted here by all parties.

[gtb (Gary Buhrmaster)]

@@py0xc3

to go in a common direction, whatever this is

Some additional options (I have not thought through whether I am in favor or opposed to any of the previous alternatives, or these extended ones, but just putting them out there for thought.)

5. Voting in FESCo elections requires being a member of the packaging group (this is sort of the equivalent of what I understand is the Debian approach that the developers are the ones that can vote for various technical positions).

6. Define a different list of approved groups that allow FESCo (and/or other) voting (rather than CLA+“any”), especially now that some groups may now exist for purposes that likely were not considered when the original voting criteria was established.

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

As a Join SIG member, @ankursinha 's perspective has been added to the pagure topic, representing different thoughts

[jspaleta (Jef Spaleta)]

Point of information.

What is the process right now by which SIGs are created that spells out exactly when a SIG is able to establish an identity with a FAS group? Is it because they need particular infra access?

Could I just create a Fedora Curling SIG today and get a FAS group today for it? I’ve done the groundwork.. I know there are enough people to create an international Fedora curling team with Fedora branded curling jackets as an outreach effort. I could probably have a 40 person group this week on a wiki page no problem. But what’s the process that gates getting an associated fas account?

The point being, I have deep concerns about tying voting rights to arbitrary FAS groups because there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to how and when FAS groups are created and removed.

How many SIGs right now are in fact just ghost fas groups and are effectively non-functional with no attachment points for onboarding new contributors?

If you want to tie voting strongly with SIGs, then we need to have SIGs being functional self-governing groups.. and not what they laissez-faire structures as the exist right now.

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

@jspaleta

Could I just create a Fedora Curling SIG today and get a FAS group today for it?

Creating an FAS group is definitely not as easy and informal as founding any SIG. Most SIGs (afaik) have no FAS group (I at least know many that don’t have FAS groups). Afaik (and as far as I perceive it), only the formalized SIGs have an FAS group. That said, I cannot give a precise definition of what a formalized SIG is, except that they have dedicated resources allocated and exist for long.

Maybe @kevin or someone else from Infra knows when / how an FAS group is created and what conditions must be met for a SIG or WG to get an FAS group?

[jspaleta (Jef Spaleta)]

@gtb

• Voting in FESCo elections requires being a member of the packaging group (this is sort of the equivalent of what I understand is the Debian approach that the developers are the ones that can vote for various technical positions).
• Define a different list of approved groups that allow FESCo (and/or other) voting (rather than CLA+“any”), especially now that some groups may now exist for purposes that likely were not considered when the original voting criteria was established.

If FESCO wants to limit itself to just representing the packager group that can be accommodated…but I’m not sure that’s wise as that also reduces FESCO’s scope of delegated authority that looks duplicative to the scope of the packaging committee.

There will be a continual need for technical expertise that goes beyond rpm packaging. If FESCO limits its representation to just a subset of groups, then I’m probably going to have to spin up technical advisory expertise for the groups not represented by FESCO at some point.

[jspaleta (Jef Spaleta)]

@py0xc3

Most SIGs (afaik) have no FAS group

That’s sort of my point.

[nimbinatus (Laura Santamaria)]

I have a few notes and thoughts here.

First, as someone who has long been an outsider to the Fedora community until recently, it does seem that FESCo has a very large impact on Fedora, especially as the project is, after all, a technical project. It doesn’t surprise me that people who are exploring the project beyond being a consumer might think they should be able to vote and come asking how and why.^[1]

I also think that the information given in the new joiners workflow, specifically part 6, does not necessarily indicate that the action was wrong. I agree that I’d have liked to see more reasoning from the Join SIG poster that explained why they added the person to vote so it doesn’t become a common occurrence (e.g., they’ve been around a while, contributing on forum posts and generally making people feel welcome, which seems from my quick perusal to be part of the general idea of Join SIG), and I’m not sure it’s a good thing to say “it’s temporary and I’ll remove your access immediately after you’re done” kind of thing, but frankly, this would fall under this wording:

6. Some infrastructure in Fedora requires users to be part of a team or group on the Fedora Account System. We can give temporary membership to the “Fedora-Join” FAS group if a new user requires. This can be requested by setting the C: Temporary membership needed tag. After discussing the situation, if temporary membership to the FAS group is given, we will mark the ticket with the C: Temporary membership approved tag, and grant the temporary membership.

As Join SIG is actually under Mindshare and not a “technical” SIG^[2], that temporary access allows FESCo voting seems to be an accidental bug.

I will note that there is confusion in the docs that makes it seem like FESCo does a lot more than packaging (which is why I’d argue that being a member of the packaging group only should not be a requirement for voting as it unnecessarily excludes people who are affected directly by FESCo decisions), which I’d argue is part of why people are confused:

• The overall mission of FESCo specifically mentions that FESCo handles “Special Interest Groups (SIGs) and SIG Oversight.”
  • However, not all SIGs are actually under FESCo, in practice (e.g., Join SIG, which is under Mindshare).
• Also, the common tasks and responsibilities list includes “responsible for what software is offered to end users under what conditions,” which I think is a very wide scope if you’re reading it as someone not heavily involved. Again, another reason why people would be confused and want to have a say in what they can have access to, if that makes sense.

Some general musings. I need to come back to this with a fresh cup of tea in my morning, and I’m interested to hear from other folks’ on their takes.

---

1. Side Note: This gets into all sorts of fun conversations about contribution types, different value placed on different kinds of contributions, etc. After all, how would we classify someone who is doing the heavy lifting of project management (every open source project is always open to someone doing all of the herding), or writing documentation, or some other thing adjacent to the actual development or packaging work? Personally, I think those people are doing technical work that is affected directly by FESCo—work that is at the same level of value as someone doing the development work—and thus should have a vote, even if they do not have an easily traceable contribution (i.e., a commit to their username).
   I’ll try not to derail the conversation here from the actual question, though. ↩︎

2. Again, I want to argue about the idea of who is “technical” here as many people sell their contributions short. ↩︎

[x3mboy (Eduard Lucena)]

@jspaleta

What is the process right now by which SIGs are created that spells out exactly when a SIG is able to establish an identity with a FAS group? Is it because they need particular infra access?

SIGs have a documented process to be created, but tbh is very lightweight, because being in a SIG basically means that you are working with some people in a common thing. THat thing could be as little as a common application, or as big as the Join SIG that welcome all newcomers.

FAS groups needs to be requested to via ticket. So basically is at discretion of the infra team what FAS groups are created, but as we are saying in here, everyone always assume good faith on everyone.

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

Just for the record: I adjusted the title both here and in pagure to decrease the likelihood of misinterpretations.

[frostmountain (John Handyman)]

Let’s also examine the public facing angle:

The FESCo Elections are being advertised to the entirety of Fedora Discussions for participation, without setting a clear disclaimer for who can vote in these elections or setting these announcements in specific channels (like official project SIGs per the Forge: Making sure you're not a bot! , email lists, etc.) for those who can vote on them.

Everyday users may be under the incorrect impression that this is an election is for the entire Fedora community and should have their participation. This may lead to people trying different ways to put in a vote even if they are not valid or authorized.

FESCo elections are billed to have an effect on the direction, use, and management of engineering resources going forward: whether to focus more on ai, atomic/OCI tooling, marketing, website management, infrastructure, etc. based on the profiles and expertise of the nominated member profiles.

All are things that a user may want to have some small degree of input in.

Another approach would be to have community wide polling on where everyone would like to see resources placed in addition to the FESCo Elections.

This could help avoid any impression of FESCo being seen as any sort of musical chairs exercise.

No offense intended.

[ngompa (Neal Gompa)]

@@py0xc3

Does any SIG, or the Join SIG in particular, have the authority to offer temporary memberships for the sole purpose of voting for FESCo?

As a member of FESCo, I think the answer to this should be “no”. We trust that our elections aren’t gamed by people coming in to vote and then flitting out after creating chaos. We trust that people are voting who are invested in our community.

If this is happening, we need to shut it down now.

[x3mboy (Eduard Lucena)]

@ngompa

As a member of FESCo, I think the answer to this should be “no”. We trust that our elections aren’t gamed by people coming in to vote and then flitting out after creating chaos. We trust that people are voting who are invested in our community.

If this is happening, we need to shut it down now.

It’s not happening with bad faith, but we encounter a case and that’s why we are discussing this here, and the case is not about some random person, it’s a person that is usual in discourse and find out about elections and have asked about how to get rights to vote.

[ankursinha (FranciscoD)]

Reposting my comment on the pagure ticket here to keep this thread complete:

---

Here’s the main topic for context that is public:

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/how-can-i-join-the-f43-fesco-election

Thanks for the write up, Chris. However, I’m afraid the main questions here are different and have little to do with temporary membership or individual discretion—people are always added to FAS groups based on individual trust/vetting/“discretion”.

• The main question is: “Who is allowed to vote in FESCo elections?”
• The next question is “Is CLA+1 a proxy for whatever this criteria is?”
• The next one is: “Is CLA+1 a sufficient proxy for this criteria, or does it need to be replace/updated to enforce the criteria”.
• The final one, pertaining to this case is: “Is activity on Discourse not enough to ‘earn’ these voting rights?”

Second order questions are:

• Are community members able to provide group membership based on their judgement as we always have?

I do not see any violations in the current case. I see no “bypassing” of “filters”. I see no “abuse”. A community member wanted to vote in elections, another community member vetted them and gave them the voting rights. The Join SIG’s FAS group is used to give people CLA+1 rights for things like editing the wiki because large parts of Fedora contribution do not rely on FAS groups, and I see this case as no different. The “intent”, if I may use the term, is to give community members that we trust access to community resources.

The initial topic and posts in it (eg: How can I join the F43 Fesco election? - #22 by py0xc3) have made me very uncomfortable in the way it was handled. We put “process over people”, to the extent where the original person who started this topic apologised, zeroed out their votes, and has asked people “not to be harsh” on the community member that helped them

---

I will please ask that people read the public topic before thinking about the issue. The full context is really important. Summaries do not quite include the nuances of the discussion.

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

I already indicated above in #5 that pagure and Discourse are no longer consistent in their posts and added that you added your POW there. But sure, makes sense to have it here not just as link.

I would have wished to focus solely on long term improvements about how to make Fedora better without any time pressures, which is why I originally asked to start the ticket from the Join SIG POW with their more strategic concerns (which are absolutely justified!) and go “on hold” with this type of action in the meantime, but the response in the original debate makes clear that we need in any case (also) a more immediate short term decision, about if this type of action has to be allowed by moderators or not when it is exercised in Discourse or in other channels in the meantime. Strategic changes can take time, and I would prefer to not wait for such an incident to happen again without a consensus or guidance about how to handle them: I feel at this time neither comfortable to block it nor to allow it, whereas a clear consensus or guidance/decision can avoid such incidents at all. The latter should be achieved, may it go along with starting more strategic improvements or not.

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

@x3mboy

@ngompa

As a member of FESCo, I think the answer to this should be “no”. We trust that our elections aren’t gamed by people coming in to vote and then flitting out after creating chaos. We trust that people are voting who are invested in our community.

If this is happening, we need to shut it down now.

It’s not happening with bad faith, but we encounter a case and that’s why we are discussing this here, and the case is not about some random person, it’s a person that is usual in discourse and find out about elections and have asked about how to get rights to vote.

While I agree that there is no bad faith or malicious intention in this case, the arguments of you and Neal are not mutually exclusive: bad faith is no requirement for causing arbitrary or undesirable outcomes in something (I mean this in general).

[tqcharm (Mike B.)]

Another aspect to be considered is the need for equal (eligibility based) access to voting. Granting voting rights on an ad hoc basis denies such rights to other community members meeting the same criteria^[1].

---

1. Not discussing whether the criteria were actually sufficient in this particular case. ↩︎

[ankursinha (FranciscoD)]

@tqcharm

Granting voting rights on an ad hoc basis denies such rights to other community members meeting the same criteria[1].

Not quite—giving rights to one person who deserves it does not deny it to others. It can feel that way, but that’s not the case. If someone else who had deserved it in a similar way was not given the voting right, that would be denying. So, wording is important.

What happened here is that someone who deserved the rights were given them after vetting (what you refer to as “ad-hoc basis”) by a fellow contributor—nothing was done to others at all.

What I read from your comment is:

“everyone should have the same rights”, which I agree with. This brings us back to whether CLA+1 is the right bar, and if it is, how do we ensure that everyone who should have it does. If it isn’t the right bar, what is the right bar, and again, how do we ensure that everyone who should have it does.

[py0xc3 (Chris)]

@ankursinha

Not quite—giving rights to one person who deserves it does not deny it to others. It can feel that way, but that’s not the case. If someone else who had deserved it in a similar way was not given the voting right, that would be denying. So, wording is important.

I think the point @tqcharm wants to make, reduced to reproducible logic, is that you add a second criteria for eligibility of voting that includes some and excludes others. With your reasoning, we have effectively two criteria, and if a user fulfills any of the two, they are allowed to vote:

1. You have CLA + permanent member of a FAS group
2. (Join SIG considers your contributions worthy) AND (you know about this possibility) AND (you either able to reach out to them or vice versa)

Now we have four potential user groups:

1. fulfill 1 and fulfill 2 → can vote
2. fulfill 1 and not 2 → can vote
3. fulfill not 1 but fulfill 2 → can vote
4. fullfill not 1 and not 2 (because not knowing of the offer or not able to reach out) → cannot vote

Your reasoning creates an exclusion of group 4 compared to group 3, even if 4 fulfills your criteria for being worthy but cannot reach out to you (does not know about your offer, does not know of Join SIG, etc.).

At the same time, the criteria remains intransparent and not reproducible, making it questionable if and when people would feel safe to reach out to you for getting this right, which adds another exclusion: two contributors might have the very same contribution, but one comes to the personal opinion that that is likely not enough, the other comes to the opinion it is enough. One of the two would reach out to you, the other not. Again, two equal users end up in one being able to vote the other not.