The Fedora Council uses this to record ongoing work and to track issues which need a specific resolution.  |  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council

#156 Election's interviews - voting ticket

Created 8 months ago by jkurik
Modified 8 months ago

As we have cancelled the Autumn elections 2017 due to an issue we had with interviews, I would like to ask Council members to vote for their preferred stance how we should work with interviews in the next elections (January 2018). The proposals are as follows:

A) mandatory interviews with all the questions from Questionnaire
B) mandatory interviews with selected top 3 questions
C) optional interviews - there will be a questionnaire but it is up to a nominee whether an interview is published
D) no interviews - no questionnaire, however nominees might use CommBlog to introduce them self to the community in a way they like

As we need to plan the next round of Elections soon, I would like to ask Council members to vote until Wednesday, December 13th.

We had townhalls before CommBlog, and I think questionnaires are helping to know more about the candidates and their personal thoughts on specific questions. I'd like to select some questions and make others optional.
So, +1 for proposal B.

I already expressed my opinion in ticket #153, so I am obviously D.

As I have said in a number of places i'm B. I would also add the corollary that the respective, current, bodies (groups) should decide the "top 3."

Edited 8 months ago by langdon

I can support B and A. I also suggest we consider "mandatatory interviews but no mandatory questions. People can write that they don't want to answer questions as that sends a message".

I will not block A or B for this. I prefer B to A.

I am a pretty hard -1 to D (no questions) but I also don't think there should be a gauntlet. I'm in favor of a short, required questionnaire. The purpose of the questions is to help increase the exposure of candidates who are working in Fedora but tend for whatever reason to be less visible — but it also serves as a very small commitment threshold.

I guess I could go with "C", but in that case I'd like a placeholder that says "Candidate So-And-So: declined to answer questions" or something like that. I'm mostly against this, too.

Reading the comments above as well as having a discussion on Fedora Council meeting on Dec 13th, the result is "B": mandatory interviews with selected top 3 questions

We already have a draft of the schedule for this scenario and we are going to publish it during Friday, Dec 15th on Elections wiki page.

8 months ago

Metadata Update from @jkurik:
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)


as you know there was a 'view a preview CommBlog issue, which I ran into (pre-deadline), and about which corresponded with you and @robyduck and @jwf ... Is there a write-up and has that write-up been tested, so a candidate can put up, and review a draft statement

(I see you closed this bug -- perhaps it should be re-opened until this is answered?)

@herrold Yeah, we're talking about instead using private pagure tickets to submit answers, so CommBlog editors don't need to recuse themselves.


I probably missed that in the meeting yesterday, as I was trying to IRC from a phone ;)

Login to comment on this ticket.