Not everyone in this election completed the survey. There is some debate on whether this should be required. Let's come to a decision here.
As I see it: the downside to requiring it is that it's more bureaucracy and process, raising a barrier to participation. Or, having the requirement doesn't separate out the people who are willing to really put in effort rather than just do the minimum.
The main advantage is that it reduces the ability to get votes just by being well-recognized. And, raising the participation bar isn't necessarily bad.
Are there other pros and cons? What do you all think?
I am not in favour to enforce the interview. Almost every elections we have a trouble with the minimum number of candidates applying for a role (FESCo, Council, ...). The enforcement of interviews can IMO makes this even worse.
I think the answer is "it depends". Most of our elected bodies should be done based on merit. For FESco, that is somewhat easier to deduce given the technical implications of involvement there. One can see if a person is active via package reviews, git commits, devel discussions, etc. So the survey there is still good, but to some degree FESCo should be elected based on recognition.
For the Council, it's much harder to gauge both what a person is doing at that level and more importantly what is expected for a person to be doing at that level. We don't have technical things we can use for metrics of participation other than mailing list discussions. The Council is much more soft-skill and high level focused, so a survey goes a long way towards understanding what each candidate sees as the vision for Fedora, etc. Ambassadors probably falls somewhere in between on this spectrum.
I suspect the best answer is that each governing body should decide if the survey is required. I would suggest for the Council it is. I agree with Jan's concern about the minimum number of candidates but really it is not a high bar to fill out the survey, particularly when the community often has little else to go on. Also, the fact that we have trouble getting candidates is an issue that should be looked into separately, as I do not think filling out a survey is the reason why.
I think that in a first moment this can be seen as additional barrier, but on the other hand we had townhalls in the past where nominees were more or less obliged to participate. Was this not even worse instead of taking 30 minutes to put together answers for an interview? For me making this a requirement for someone who will, if elected, offer some of his spare time if he is doing it seriously, is not really a bad thing and should even be normal. Extending the campaign period could help here to get in interviews from all candidates.
The interview templates should be set up directly in the commBlog, without any emails which can be lost or could lead to accuses of conflicts of interest (i.e.nominees should not be wranglers at the same time). We could just add the requirement to the nomination pages and link to the commBlog where candidates will find their personal interview, and the announcement when these templates are ready should be done publicly through ML.
+1 to asking the group behind each body to make this decision +1 to requiring it for council +1 to extending the voting apparatus to better support interviews, ideally with nomination triggering the rest of the process.
Yeah, works for me.
Metadata Update from @mattdm: - Issue tagged with: elections
Proposed: Positions elected by generally by the Fedora community (FPCA+1 voting requirement) are required to complete an election interview article which will be linked in the elections application. Positions elected by a subset of the Fedora community (FPCA+specific group(s)) must complete an interview or whatever other requirements are put forward by their electing groups.
Note: The election calendar should be updated to require interview questions be complete before the nomination window opens. Election questions must be available to nominees during the election process, probably linked on the nomination page. Election questionnaires are to be published all at once right before the voting period opens, not as received.
Please vote in the ticket by Wednesday 27 September. Lazy consensus rules.
Note: @jkurik is preparing a review of the election timeline
Still +1 to the proposal here.
Here is my proposed Election schedule:
Here are the major changes comparing to the current schedule:
Let me know any comments you might have.
+1
+1 calendar (and my proposal)
Metadata Update from @bex: - Issue close_status updated to: approved - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.