#60 Telegram as communication channel
Opened 3 months ago by x3mboy. Modified a month ago

What?

We are using telegram from a while, and even when we have a directory, we never set Telegram as an Official Communication channel.

My idea is to create and advertise our channels as "Official channels".

Why?

I found a lot of channels, but I'm recently concern about an Spanish channel that is claiming to be "The official Fedora Spanish Channel", and is not the channel when we really have control.

How?

Well, the idea is to create a set of rules or milestones to be considered an official channel, my proposal are 2:

  1. Channel's admins must be community members.
  2. Approval from Mindshare (via a Pagure ticket).

After this, they (admins) can ask to be included in the pinned message of the main channel.


This would need to go to the Council, not us. Traditionally IRC is our official communication channel. The telegram channels are under these rules: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Community_sites_and_accounts

Please open a Council ticket about the Telegram channel so we can have them contacted. If you know them personally, please share the link above.

on hold pending council decision

I believe we can close this as the council posted about communication in the council hack report. WDYT?

I think the root problem of this ticket (and others like it) is a governance issue about how decisions are made in the Ambassadors sub-project. To solve this ticket and others, I believe more focus is needed to target governance structures in Ambassadors and how it co-exists with the Advocates program.

The Council report assigns responsibility to sub-projects to choose any platform as official, but this ticket is stuck because how that decision is made for Ambassador-led groups is unclear (in other words, how to form consensus among Ambassadors). I think this is also why #68 lost traction.

Maybe this ticket isn't about Telegram or other chat platforms, but about decision-making in the Ambassador sub-project. In the past, we discouraged Ambassadors to think in terms of regions, but decisions like the Fedora LATAM group were directed to use the decision-making precedent by the LATAM region. It is a paradox.

I think the right way to solve this ticket, and other tickets in the future like this is to solidify a governance structure for Ambassadors / Advocates. The documentation for Advocates is written, but perhaps the focus should move towards how to implement what is written in the context of the existing Ambassador sub-project (since many people identify first as an Ambassador, not an Advocate).

My initial feeling is that it may be an insurmountable challenge for any individual or committee to maintain governance structures for these two groups at the same time because of their overlapping goals and mission.

@jflory7 I think your comments about the governance challenges for Ambassadors are true. In conversations with @nb I have suggested that he work with @sumantrom to get the Emeritus Ambassador work done. I know that this is a priority for both of them.

This work will allow us to actually understand who makes up consensus and decision making so we can define a path forward.

I view Ambassador governance as intertwined with Mindshare Governance and through that lens see us as maintaining a few extra pieces, not an entirely new structure.

Metadata Update from @bex:
- Issue untagged with: meeting, needs feedback
- Issue assigned to nb
- Issue priority set to: None (was: awaiting triage)

a month ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata