[Ambassadors] mentorship, sponsorship, etc.

[Clint Savage]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:14 AM, David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Max Spevack <mspevack at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I warn you in advance that this is a very long email.
>>
>> There's been a discussion on famsco-list for the last week and a half now,
>> and I volunteered to try to summarize some of that conversation, so that we
>> could move it to fedora-ambassadors-list.
>>
>> The main topics of the discussion center around these three points:
>>
>> * Purging of inactive Ambassadors
>> * Mentoring
>> * Raising the standard for membership
>>
>> ===
>>
>> The thread was started by David Nalley, and his initial email brought up the
>> following:
>>
>> The "probation" idea for Fedora Ambassadors is flawed, and can be improved.
>>  Improving it will help raise the overall quality and effectiveness of
>> Fedora Ambassadors.  In particular, David advocated for the following:
>>
>> 1) Fixed term for probation should go away, and be replaced with a specific
>> set of tasks that need to be achieved.
>>
>> 2) If someone makes no progress in X amount of time, we purge them from the
>> system.  If they are making progress, then give as much time as is needed.
>>
>> 3) New Ambassadors should immediately be given a mentor -- a specific name
>> of an Ambassador in their region.
>>
>> 4) Current restrictions on getting resources as an Ambassador while on
>> probation should go away, and be replaced with "at your mentor's
>> discretion".
>>
>> Max's note #1: This begins to lay out what looks like a more formal
>> sponsorship process for Ambassadors, which is similar to the sort of thing
>> that happens in the Fedora Package Maintainers community.
>>
>> Max's note #2: As Fedora Ambassadors continues to grow, a sponsorship
>> process becomes more and more critical, and Package Maintainers has set a
>> good example and precedent.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Francesco Ugolini commented that we want to continue to ensure that
>> resources are managed regionally (which is consistent with David's
>> proposal), and that one important task will be to ensure that *whatever* the
>> requirements are on new people who want to join Ambassadors, it be as clear,
>> and as internationalized, as possible.
>>
>> Max's note #3: In Ambassadors in particular, it's important for us to try to
>> simplify and clarify policy as much as possible.  The number of languages on
>> our list and in our sub-project is very large, even compared to other parts
>> of Fedora (perhaps with the exception of Localization).
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Thomas Canniot expressed concerns with the mentorship idea.  He was not
>> "against" it, but wanted more discussion and some "convincing".
>>
>> Now I'm going to list the three points that Thomas made, as well as some of
>> the conversation that came after each of these points in the email thread.
>>
>> (1) There are two types of Ambassadors -- the already-active Ambassadors
>> around the world who don't need any mentorship, and the Ambassadors who do
>> need mentorship and guidance.
>>
>> David Nalley responded to this point by saying that some of the older
>> Ambassadors didn't have anything like a mentor and had to figure out and
>> build the current structure by trial and error.  Now that we have a chance
>> to be more efficient with training and mentorship, shouldn't we take that
>> opportunity?
>>
>> David said that he'd categorize Ambassadors instead as "those who take
>> ownership of something" and "those who don't know that they *can* take
>> ownership of something", and that we want to move people from the second
>> group into the first group.
>>
>> He also went on to say (and I'm adding in a bit of my own thoughts here
>> also) that one of the goals of the Ambassadors project needs to be ensuring
>> that new Ambassadors realize quickly that they play a crucial role in
>> Fedora, and that they have tremendous power to represent Fedora, and that it
>> is also very important that Ambassadors understand and believe in the main
>> principles of Fedora -- the four foundations, for example, and what they
>> mean.
>>
>> (2) We don't need mentorship until the growth of Ambassadors slows down.
>>
>> Max's note #4: I think the rate at which we are getting new Ambassadors
>> clearly demonstrates that mentorship is needed now, because QUALITY is far
>> more important than QUANTITY.  I don't want to be signing up new Ambassadors
>> if only 1 in 10 is developing into true stars and leaders in the Ambassadors
>> community.
>>
>> (3) Adding in mentorship and sponsorship suggests that we don't believe
>> people can reach the same level of success as some of the older Ambassadors
>> without help, and that is disappointing.
>>
>> Max's note #5: Personally, I disagree with this.  The ability to have a
>> mentor or a sponsor (who serves as a mentor) is a luxury, not a sign of
>> lack-of-confidence.
>>
>> As David Nalley said: "The Ambassadors are representatives of the Fedora
>> Project; They are the spokespeople and the public face for Fedora. What
>> concerns me is that we essentially have these representatives that may know
>> precious little about Fedora and free software, and the penchant for
>> misrepresenting is high. I personally like our low barrier to entry. At the
>> same time I think that it is incumbent upon us (FAmSCo) to provide the
>> background education to the uninitiated if we are serious about our
>> responsibilities the Ambassadors project and plant to continue having a low
>> barrier to entry.
>>
>> As has been noted previously in this email, the Package Maintainers team
>> provides an excellent example of this, as does the Art team.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Joerg Simon responded with an email promoting the virtues of mentoring, with
>> specific examples from his own time in Fedora, both the people who helped to
>> mentor him (Chitlesh & Gerold) as well as the people who he has helped to
>> mentor (Mirlan & Thibault).  "Trust and Mentoring is the Key!", says Joerg,
>> and I agree with him.
>>
>> David Nalley notes that we don't want to devalue what it means to be a
>> Fedora Ambassador by not having enough structure.  Max adds that it is not
>> simply enough to say "I think Fedora is great!" but rather that Ambassadors
>> serve a specific, and crucial role in our community.  We give our
>> Ambassadors tremendous amounts of freedom and trust to be the public face of
>> Fedora, and therefore there is a requirement to provide some level of
>> "quality control" and oversight.
>>
>> In short, Fedora Ambassadors is not a social club.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> A specific proposed action by Joerg is to clean up the FAS group for Fedora
>> Ambassadors.
>>
>> David Nalley agreed, saying:
>>
>> "This is an ideal time to do so - with the recent password reset I'd guess
>> that 30% or more of the people in the Ambassador fas group have their fas
>> account inactive due to failing to change their password. I'd argue that we
>> should give them 30 days (~April 6th iirc) and if their account is still
>> inactive in FAS we should jettison them. They clearly aren't active if they
>> haven't had to use their fedora account (or missing the fedora email addy)
>> over a period of 30 days. That's a better indication IMO than any 'I'm here'
>> message."
>>
>> Susmit and Francesco both gave a +1 to this, as did Rodrigo, who went a step
>> further and said that in LATAM, he plans to have a personal conversation
>> with all people who want to be Ambassadors.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> A specific proposal for a FAmSCo vote was suggested by David:
>>
>> ""That FAmSCo direct the Ambassador Membership Service to request from
>> Infrastructure a list of all users who are Ambassadors and whose account has
>> remained inactive for a period of greater than 30 days after a password
>> reset, and further that FAmSCo direct the Membership Service to purge said
>> users from the Ambassadors list"
>>
>> Fedora Infrastructure ran a query for us, which showed that of the 772
>> Ambassadors in FAS, 300 were inactive based on the statement above.
>>
>> Max's note #6: For me, this sets off major alarm bells, and goes back to the
>> idea of quantity versus quality.  The Ambassadors numbers grow, but they are
>> inflated because most of the people are joining the group because they want
>> to basically join the Fedora Fan Club, and this is the closest thing that we
>> have to that, but the purpose of Ambassadors is not to be a Fan Club.
>>
>> Thomas Canniot agreed that this set off alarm bells for him to, and conceded
>> that some cleanup of the FAS group is clearly necessary. Susmit notes that a
>> mixture of automated and manual cleanup processes would be the best, to
>> prevent false positives or other mistakes that could lead to hurting the
>> feelings of an important community member.
>>
>> Joerg states that he is in favor of cleaning up inactive accounts, and
>> coupling that with a higher barrier to entry for the Ambassadors project.
>>  David agrees, and wonders why we are taking so long to make what seems like
>> an obviously right decision.
>>
>> Francesco notes that a decision is made, but that another opportunity for
>> full discussion among Ambassadors is required, which is what this email that
>> I have been writing attempts to lay out and summarize.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> David Nalley notes that Fedora Infrastructure might already be planning some
>> sort of action for people whose accounts remain inactive past a password
>> reset, because there is a potential security issue for having dormant
>> accounts, with various permissions, just sitting around. Perhaps our problem
>> of inactivity will be solved by a larger problem of inactivity across Fedora
>> that needs to be addressed.
>>
>> Max's note #7: Solving the inactivity problem and the mentorship problem are
>> two different things!!!
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Max's note #8: It seems to me that the actions on the table for FAmSCo to
>> ultimately deal with are:
>>
>> (1) Dealing with inactive accounts, either within our sub-project itself or
>> within the whole of Fedora Infrastructure.
>>
>> (2) Reforming our barriers-to-entry and sponsorship process to remove time
>> limits, but to require specific actions and a show of progress.
>>
>> (3) Putting together a mentorship/sponsorship system similar to that of
>> Package Maintainers.
>>
>> --
>> Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list
>> Fedora-ambassadors-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
>>
>
>
> Yet another warning that this is likely to be a long email.
>
> In the course of our discussion on the FAmSCo list, Joerg has
> convinced me of the logic behind raising the barrier to entry. (Note
> that of the three issues that Max presented, this one only deals with
> raising the barrier to entry.)
>
> Essentially it comes down to who we place the initial burden on.
> Mentoring is needed, but if the current virtually non-existent barrier
> remains it means that our limited supply of mentors will be incredibly
> taxed, and possibly with precious little gain.
>
> In the course of that discussion a number of things were suggested as
> prerequisites - a few of which are listed below (not all of them as
> honestly the discussion is 38 pages worth of text at this point (sans
> prior email quoting)
> - has to be a Contributor to another Sub-Project inside Fedora where a
> sponsor is needed
> - is recommended by a Contributor to another Sub-Project inside Fedora
> who will take mentorship for that person
> - has contributed to Fedora on a event before
>
> The idea being that this isn't a newbie group.
>
> So lets first look at the definition of what a traditional ambassador is:
> a diplomat of the highest rank; accredited as representative from one
> country to another
>
> In Fedora's case an Ambassador is a liaison to the general public and
> the open source community and represents the public face of Fedora.
> While charged with promoting Fedora, Ambassadors are more than PR
> droids as inherent in bearing the title of Ambassador comes the
> authority and expectation of getting things done and not just being a
> mouthpiece.
>
> Looking at the more traditional examples of Ambassadors we find them
> to generally be experienced statesmen. They are the highest ranking
> diplomat sent to foreign entities.
>
> The problem that I perceive, and I believe others do as well is that
> these representatives of the Fedora Project aren't living up to the
> same level of quality that we expect of Fedora as a distribution, or
> of the contributors in other portions of Fedora. We have high
> standards for packagers, art people, etc, and yet we don't for the
> representatives of the project?
>
> I fully believe that a portion of the problem is our failure to
> communicate the authority which the Ambassadors are given. Max quoted
> me in saying that we have a large percentage of people who haven't yet
> realized that they can take ownership of things in Fedora and I fully
> believe this to be the case.
>
> But more specifically, I perceive a problem in the following areas
> with a good percentage of new Ambassadors:
>
> 1. Lack of knowledge and understanding of the Free/Libre Open Source
> Software movement and it's philosophies and principles.
>
> 2. Lack of knowledge about the Fedora Project, it's goals,
> foundational believes, structure, and organization.
>
> Please don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to create an elitist
> group or proposing that we remove existing Ambassadors because they
> 'aren't up to snuff'. What I am saying is that going forward we need
> to be able to provide a minimally acceptable quality. Every other
> subproject has work standards one must meet before being accepted. Why
> should we not hold ourselves to that same standard?
>
> I unfortunately fear that left unchecked our organization will devolve
> into a social club.
>
> Currently, the most arduous task for someone who wants to be n
> Ambassador is that they acquire a FAS account. I can't imagine many
> arguing that is enough to qualify them as the highest envoys in the
> land.
>
> --
> Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list
> Fedora-ambassadors-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ambassadors-list
>

-- Note: I guess it's a thread of long emails --

I for one, will yield to our great FAmSCo overlords!  :)

Seriously, I am truly grateful for the vote I placed for many now
participating in FAmSCo.  As David is on his first term, I'm excited
for the needed discussions and directoins brought forth.  I'm excited
to see needed change happening because of this cohesion among our
FAmSCo leadership.

To start with, I've seen the discussion of Active and Inactive
Ambassadors be brought up (by me and others) only to be shut down by
some who would wish to discourage alienating other Ambassadors who are
doing good works.  But I always thought there were ways to identify
those who were driving ambassadorship in Fedora, the methods we used
were archaic and incomplete.  In this case, while I don't believe it
will ever be perfect, I think we're getting very close to a good
system that can improve the quality of the Fedora Ambassadors.  I also
believe that the quantity will not slow too much, but rather more
people will be interested because they will gain valuable skills now
as an Ambassador.

Raising the barrier some is good and that's why mentoring will be a
very important part of this barrier.  So far, I've seen some great
suggestions for how to do that, and I agree with the basic sentiment
of a sponsor.  Essentially, every other FAS group has one, we should
too.  The sponsor is the mentor, the person who makes sure that the
new ambassadors understands the issues and drives the sponsorship
based upon some specific milestones as well as a few loose guidelines.
 My theory is somewhat similar to the one provided by David and
others, we should sponsor new members who have proven themselves and I
think that's really important.

Lastly, I think there are minimums people can achieve, but because
Fedora Ambassadors can lurk in many places, having a set of
requirements might be a bit tight.  I'd like to suggest that the new
prospective Ambassador and their mentors sit down with a list of
*suggested* requirements, something they can tangibly look at and say,
yes, I think I can accomplish X, Y and Z to become an ambassador.
Here's a couple quick examples.

All prospective ambassadors would complete some some minimal set of
acknowledgement like Wiki page, introducing yourself, the open source
projects you are involved in and a basic set of benefits you bring to
Fedora.  Something similar to what Joerg is requiring now.

= Prospective Ambassador A agrees to accomplish the following to
become officially sponsored within Fedora Ambassadors =

- Blog about your belief system with regard to free software
- Attend a conference in your region with other Ambassadors and under
the guidance of you mentor
  - Make a report and blog/email it to the appropriate lists.
- Regularly participate in regional ambassador meetings.

= Prospective Ambassador B agrees to accomplish the following to
become officially sponsored within Fedora Ambassadors =

- Attend local LUGs and present on what Fedora is and it's core goals
(four foundations, etc)
- Identify initiatives within Fedora that you'd like to promote to
others, maybe Fedora Infrastructure.  Join this group and help to
promote it to new contributors
- Regularly participate in regional ambassador meetings.

I know my examples are weak, and that probably encouraging ambassadors
into another group of their interest would be key elements of
mentoring/sponsorship, but at some point we need to set those limits.
I just think they don't have to be a set list, but rather an agreed
upon set of promises between the prospective ambassador and the
mentor/sponsor.

I am really appreciative of this direction and am looking forward to
seeing more positive direction and guidance with these sorts of
initiatives.

Cheers,

Clint