On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Francesco Ugolini wrote:
> Stay sure, we don't want to "kill" people, we know the different needs
> of each ambassador. We want to shake people that do nothing.
Why do we want to "shake people that do
nothing"? What harm do they do?
And what's to say that someone who does nothing today won't be someone who
does something vitally important later? And what's your threshhold for
"activity" -- somebody says "I'm active"?
The *only* effect of *any* inactivity policy will be to announce to
people, "we don't want you, go away."
My $0.02: once somebody says "I am a Fedora ambassador," then they are a
Fedora ambassador, FOR LIFE. Until (a) they say "no thanks, I'm not an
ambassador anymore," or (b) they do something that disgraces Fedora, and
FAMSCO drums them out.
So let me back up and ask a question. What's the *real* goal here?
Is the goal to recognize our best ambassadors?
Is the goal to know who can be "counted upon" to get stuff done?
What are we trying to accomplish with the active/inactive proposal?
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"
Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list
Fedora-ambassadors-list redhat comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list