#419 RFE: Open FAmSCo mailing list membership to the public
Closed: Complete 4 years ago Opened 4 years ago by jflory7.

This ticket is part of a two-part series to improve visibility of FAmSCo's work and better include the wider Ambassador community with those representing us in FAmSCo.

Summary

Membership on the FAmSCo mailing list should be open to the public to subscribe and participate on.

Analysis

As some background to why I am filing this ticket (and the other), since becoming an Ambassador, I have always felt disconnected from FAmSCo outside of the election period. I read candidate interviews and view tickets, and then it becomes difficult for me to follow along if I am not able to make the meeting times. If I want to follow mailing list discussion, I have to manually check the mailing list archives. If I want to reach a FAmSCo member outside of a meeting time, I will have to find them across various IRC channels. The purpose of this request is to help add an important level of transparency and openness to FAmSCo so Ambassadors are better able to follow what is being discussed, but also to improve communication with our leadership.

Since the current mailing list archives are already public, it doesn't seem to be a matter of privacy about discussions. Specifically to a mailing list, it would be helpful for me to follow along with emails that arrive to my inbox so I don't have to actively seek out discussions and manually check whenever I think there might be new discussion. And then if I want to add my own perspective as an Ambassador, it will be easy for me to reply and add my thoughts. This is similar to how the Fedora Council operates, where they have the council-discuss list where most of their discussions happen, but the community is invited to follow along and also to participate.

I think this would be valuable for FAmSCo to consider, especially given the new focus at retooling Ambassadors for the new Linux world we find ourselves in!


I have no real opinion on this. While I am for openness and transparency, I see no short term advantage, as the list is not really used for discussions. FAmSCo discuss more over meetings and trac tickets. Maybe this can change if we open the ML to the public, so I am fine either way.

-1 sometimes FAmSCo should decide as a whole and knowing the boring discussions between members isn't really productive.

Replying to [comment:3 mailga]:

-1 sometimes FAmSCo should decide as a whole and knowing the boring discussions between members isn't really productive.

I'm not sure if I can understand this… the discussion isn't so boring to many of us in the community. In fact, to me, it's easy for me to forget FAmSCo is even there (which is why I filed this ticket). I would actively like to have a chance to see what is being discussed but also to have a chance to participate if there is something I want to comment on (but maybe not file a new ticket for). For this reason, would it make since for the Council to make their mailing list private as well?

Replying to [comment:4 jflory7]:

Replying to [comment:3 mailga]:

-1 sometimes FAmSCo should decide as a whole and knowing the boring discussions between members isn't really productive.

I'm not sure if I can understand this… the discussion isn't so boring to many of us in the community. In fact, to me, it's easy for me to forget FAmSCo is even there (which is why I filed this ticket).
I think mailga wanted to say, sometimes FAmSCo needs a place where to discuss things internally. We don't do that because we eventually discuss it in the ML, without having too much "noise" from other people (as others can read but not comment).

I would actively like to have a chance to see what is being discussed but also to have a chance to participate if there is something I want to comment on (but maybe not file a new ticket for). For this reason, would it make since for the Council to make their mailing list private as well?

I don't get the reason of your question, but the Council ''has'' already a private ML, However, we are talking about FAmSCo, not the Council, right?

If people want to have the FAmSCo ML open, then FAmSCo needs a private ML too (which adds another ML to my list, and I would like to avoid that).

Replying to [comment:5 robyduck]:

I think mailga wanted to say, sometimes FAmSCo needs a place where to discuss things internally. We don't do that because we eventually discuss it in the ML, without having too much "noise" from other people (as others can read but not comment).

This makes a little more sense, but I still disagree. If you look at the council-discuss mailing list, it is still mostly active only by Council members with occasional community input. If there was a need to discuss things internally, I assume this was done via private emailing since the archives are already public. It's difficult for me to agree with this because as it is right now, there isn't any "private" place to discuss among FAmSCo members.

It doesn't seem fair to me or other Ambassadors who may want to communicate with our representatives as being too much noise.

I don't get the reason of your question, but the Council ''has'' already a private ML, However, we are talking about FAmSCo, not the Council, right?

If people want to have the FAmSCo ML open, then FAmSCo needs a private ML too (which adds another ML to my list, and I would like to avoid that).

I was trying to show an example of how another leadership body in Fedora handles this type of scenario.

Whether or not FAmSCo feels they need a private mailing list to discuss matters outside of public eye is a question to be answered by FAmSCo. But if the reason to prevent participation of the community on the mailing list is to prevent "too much noise" or because people don't want another mailing list to subscribe to, this feels more like intentional barring of the contributor community from having input or making FAmSCo less accessible to Ambassadors. :(

@Justin: I meant exactly what Robert explained. And also I'm not the kind of person who wanna keep secrets in his work for the community (I think you know me quite enough to know this). That was why I'm not comfortable with an open list, but I don't insist because this is not a "main" issue. I'm ok with any decision FAmSCo will approve. You're right when you say that there are other ways to discuss sensitive topics, but in that case we will lose the history and one day next FAmSCo (or other body that will bring up its tasks) won't be able to understand what's happened.
Therefore I change my vote on this in +0.

Thanks.

Gabri

If ambassadors feel disconnected from FAmSCo and they think that our mailing list is a good way for them to reach us for different problems then +1 to jflory7 request. I understand also mailga concern but we need to find a way/ solution for them too.

I don't mind to have a public mailing list. I'm not eager to start it, but if others find it useful I'm fine with it.

  • FAmSCo List was opened up in 2010 for transparency ... discussion at this time was supposed FAmSCo only - to lower noise

  • FAmSCo private or internals were supposed to be discussed in the famsco trac - because there was the possibility to invite others to the private tickets and participate in the private discussion

  • if there is the benefit of better connecting FAmSCo to the Ambassadors by completely opening up the FAmSCo list i would say there is no reason anymore for a FAmSCo List, because the open discussions can then happen in the Ambassdors List. This would also avoid the cross-postings - and if someone want to reach out to FAmSCo one can still open a ticket.

Would a solution be to explicitly encourage FAmSCo to use the Ambassadors lists for conversations unless there is a specific need to restrict the conversation to only FAmSCo members? This would solve the issue raised in this ticket and not create any new mailing lists.

Personally, it is odd to me that the archives are open but the list isn't able to be subscribed too, however it sounds like in 2010 there was a reason for this.

Metadata Update from @robyduck:
- Issue close_status updated to: None
- Issue private status set to: False (was: True)

4 years ago

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue priority set to: 20
- Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 26
- Issue tagged with: meeting, policy

4 years ago

FAmSCo voted on this by 5 -1's, so rejecting the proposal.

However, jflory7 wants to come up with alternative solutions and we agreed to keep the ticket open and see if we can make all happy with another proposal.

@jflory7 I didn't see any proposal here from you, but let's assume FAmSCo ML open for subscription, what should go there? It seems it could improve communication, which we strongly want too.

  • Tickets are already going to that list -> people would get notifications
  • FAmSCo agenda would go '''only''' to that list, we won't post it to the ambassadors list anymore
  • Discussions on specific topics could be done there, and not in the ambassadors list
  • Subscribe/unsubscribe new/old FAmSCo members by the list admin is not necessary anymore

Do you have anything else which could be a concrete pro?

Cons are:

  • FAmSCo will not have a place where to discuss stuff privately, as the Council does. Means, FAmSCo would probably need a private list, which adds another ML. This would make much more sense for a FOSCo, we actually do not have (yet?).
  • Cross posting could become a problem (FAmSCo and ambassadors list)
  • By trying to improve communication we risk to get less communication, as many ambassadors will just not subscribe to the FAmSCo list

Please add anything concrete here, and we can (as promised) rediscuss that to either approve or reject it definitely and close this ticket.
Thanks

FAmSCo would probably need a private list, which adds another ML. This would make much more sense for a FOSCo, we actually do not have (yet?).

Why not convert the FAmSCo list into a private list for FAmSCo and move almost all discussion to ambassadors@fp.o?

It seems we are working hard to keep two public lists and I don't see why.

I think that a public FAmSCo list makes little sense. To me, discussions should be on the Ambassadors mailing list and if FAmSCo members feel that something needs to be discussed privately, we can do it on IRC or on a private list.
My two cents.

Ok I've sent out a communication to the ambassadors ML, set pagure to notify the ambassadors list and asked Infra to set the FAmSCo ML to private:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5904

Once this is done I'll close this ticket.

FAmSCo list has been set as private list now. Closing this ticket now.
Thanks.

Metadata Update from @robyduck:
- Issue close_status updated to: Complete
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

4 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata