#102 Improving Fedora Elections Process: Nomination process
Closed: Complete 2 years ago Opened 3 years ago by cprofitt.

These ideas were taken from ticket #90; the focus of this ticket is the nomination process.

---- ideas from #90 ----

  • automating communications with nominees
    • verify that they are accepting nomination
    • communicate the 'campaign' process (ie., interview on commops, etc)
  • use the same tool as the election tool or automate the creation of the ballot to avoid FAS name errors
  • way to determine what teams would like to hold elections

Discussed in 2017-02-07 meeting.

Long-term: Improving Elections app

One thing we identified as being most helpful to solve this problem is having support built into the Elections app for nominating candidates and submitting questions. Ideally, it would be easier to bundle the election process all into one place, instead of using wiki pages to maintain and update this information (which can be confusing and counter-intuitive sometimes).

RFEs were filed upstream in the Elections app as ticket 47 (nominations), ticket 48 (questionnaire), and ticket 49 (eligibility requirement checking). More complete descriptions of these ideas can be found in those tickets.

Short-term: Maintaining the bar

This past release cycle, I feel like we did well in communicating the nomination process. FAmSCo had thirteen nominees for seven seats, the Council had five nominees for one seat, and FESCo had seven nominees for five seats. In @jkurik's retrospective on the Community Blog, this was one of the most participated elections in Fedora history as well. So clearly we are on the right track! But there is always room for improvement.

To maintain…

So, to maintain, we need to keep doing:

  • Community Blog posts announcing the nomination, campaign, and election results
  • Reminder posts on the announcement mailing list about election deadlines
  • Social media posts for election deadlines

To grow…

One thing we can try to do better for the next release cycle is communicating the presence of the questionnaire on the wiki and encourage community members to add their own questions they want answered by candidates. Better communicating the questionnaire, I feel, will correspond to increased readership of the actual interviews too. But we should factor this into our messaging for the next election cycle to see if we can gather more interest in questions for nominees next time.

Encourage nominations by current members?

Also an idea that came to me, partially motivated by discussion elsewhere, should we directly propose the idea of every existing member of an electable body in Fedora try nominating someone or many people to take their place (but a minimum of one)? Obviously this isn't something CommOps would take care of, but we could file upstream tickets to the Council, FESCo, and FAmSCo to consider making this an official policy of their own.

I'm curious to know what others think about this!

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue untagged with: meeting

3 years ago

Metadata Update from @bee2502:
- Issue set to the milestone: Future releases (was: Fedora 26)
- Issue tagged with: needs feedback

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue priority set to: critical (next week) (was: minor (3-4 weeks))
- Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 27 (to Nov. 2017) (was: Future releases)

2 years ago

The nomination period has opened, and @jkurik put out the call for nominations on the mailing lists. A Community Blog post announcing the election nomination window can be found here, and this was also shared on our official social media accounts.

Ticket #112 is also a part of streamlining the nomination => interview process.

Metadata Update from @bee2502:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

2 years ago

This information needs to be ported to Fedora Docs for future reference. The ticket has been blocked till then. More info on this in issue #118

Metadata Update from @bee2502:
- Issue untagged with: meeting, needs feedback
- Issue marked as blocking: #118
- Issue tagged with: blocked

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue unmarked as blocking: #118
- Issue priority set to: no deadline (was: critical (next week))
- Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 28 (to May 2018) (was: Fedora 27 (to Nov. 2017))

2 years ago

Policy changes were made to the elections in January 2018. #118 is now closed and complete, now that our team documentation better explains our role and engagement with the election process.

Since the work detailed in this ticket was completed in Summer 2017, I am closing this ticket as complete. We can start fresh with new work for the elections at the start of the next cycle.

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue untagged with: blocked
- Issue close_status updated to: Complete
- Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 27 (to Nov. 2017) (was: Fedora 28 (to May 2018))
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata