I actually agree to most of your points. My point is, you brought up SIG oversight in this context. So I assume there is agreement that the voting/poll issues have a relation to the SIG oversight (as you say, much is not even defined about this → interpretations possible again), while the polls have a massive impact on FESCo and indirectly its legitimacy among those who need to tailor to them and implement their decision making. Since several members of FESCo made clear they have an opinion about this, which is often contrary to interpretations exercised in the past, I wonder if they have a preference to make more use of this oversight to add clarify with some direction themselves. I’m not arguing in any direction here, except that FESCo might have an interest to be heard about such matters, and not take for granted they want to get rid of this. That’s all I’m saying 
[quote=“Chris, post:62, topic:179126, username:py0xc3”]
So I assume there is agreement that the voting/poll issues have a relation to the SIG oversight [/quote]
It may have a relation if FESCo makes some specific choices about what their voting eligibility requirements will be. At present, the underlying issue of relying on fas groups in the way it is currently for voting eligibility… doesn’t go away by putting SIG goverance policy in place…because fas groups as a mechanism go beyond SIG usage. Voting eligibility mechanism is a governance choice. A choice I believe FESCo is empowered to make for itself for its elections. Does anyone want to disagree with me that FESCo gets to choose its own voting eligibility accounting mechanism?
If FESCo changes its eligibility rules to no longer be cla group +1, in such a way that is significantly less inclusive than the existing rules, that will prompt a conversation about scoping down FESCo authority to match the eligibility. I’ve said as much in the thread during the last election cycle. So if FESCo wants to change its voting eligibility rules we should try to have a Council/FESCo sync on that topic specifically so we can talk through that.
Given the difficulties I’ve outlined about fas groups as a mechanism i’m not really sure what the +1 actually accomplishes at present. Moving to just cla signed… like council… significantly lowers the governance burden of trying to figure out which fas groups should be included and which should not. I’ve taken a look at what the fasjson API exposes and there’s just isn’t enough contextual information for me to see the intended purpose of any specific fas group. I can’t even tell if a sig is fedora scoped or centos scoped (which implies we won’t be able to tell if a SIG is azure scoped in the future). If FESCo wants to continue to use fas groups as a mechanism in a more tailored way to better express the intent of the cla +1 requirement, there is probably technical work that needs to be done.
What I can say is Council is investigating a membership concept that may replace the fas group based accounting. But even if Council gets there and makes a membership concept workable, FESCo probably has to choose to adopt it when it arrives.
SIG (Special Interest Team) are informal teams, but depending on their work they can produce deliverables, like the Spins or Labs.
WG (Working Group) are official structured subcommittees that shape Fedora oficial versions, also called Fedora Editions. So here is where we have Workstation WG, and I assume KDE WG (since it’s now a Fedora Edition, it shouldn’t be called SIG anymore)
Basically 2 or more people working together in anything inside fedora can be called SIG, but they have to “request” the things to let them work and make that work visible, and here “things” are: a group on Fedora Accounts, a ML (until they die), any other infra needed.
That’s just my experience as a SIG founder.
So I will be posting the part about our existing voting criteria to the ticket, but also here for visibility. In this discussion I see two items at play:
- A request to council for guidance on voting criteria
- A discussion about SIGs in general, including what constitutes a SIG, who has/should have oversight of SIGs, what do they even mean in and for Fedora.
Addressing point 1 - Our voting guide is published in our docs. It does not mention you need to be in a SIG to vote. It mentions be part of a non-cla group in FAS, which could include being a packager, wikiedit group, etc. You need to satisfy this voting criteria to vote in Fedora Elections. That is the current, documented guidance. If the Join SIG is updating their responsibilities to include instances where they would like to grant temporary membership to some folks for voting purposes, I strongly encourage them to open a discussion with the project governance groups who would be impacted by this - FESCo and EPEL.
Addressing point 2 - This is a much longer, and broader conversation to have. I suggest splitting the topic or creating a new one about this subject.
The KDE SIG is actually now under the Personal Systems WG. I don’t think the org chart graph has been updated yet for that.
Yes, as engineering decisions come back to political decisions.
If we say that engineers get to decide which engineers run the engineering department, we should also say that only political scientists, sociologists and philosophers get to run the political arm (thus limiting Council elections to appropriately skilled persons).
Rather than do this, I would much prefer to work together and have a say as one community about all the things that matter for our future, engineering and political.
Your ethics are not universal. There are other’s too. And there are critical problems contained if you force all (diverse) stakeholder groups into one within a poll, because effectively the biggest group will rule all the others, and individual groups’ preferences cannot be measured in polls that only measure the overall result. Essentially, not even the biggest group can be reliably measured given that it is blurred by others.
I read your posts in many topics of this forums, in which you propagate and apply what you once summed up as “the ethics of open source”. It reads very inclusive, but essentially, you keep telling others what they have to think, how they have to act, who shall be eligible to vote, who shall govern whom, and insist on this being “the” ethics. Occasionally, you use your privileges to enforce these ethics, but you reject to talk to those most affected by your actions in advance. I do not understand this definition of “work together”.
Based on what contribution do you claim the right to define ethics, voting eligibility and governance for everybody?