Guidance necessary: Join SIG and temporary memberships for the sole purpose of voting in FESCo election #557
Labels
No labels
category
budget
category
code-of-conduct
category
docs
category
elections
category
events
category
initiatives
category
mindshare
category
policies
category
spending-request
category
Strategy Summit
category
trademarks
state
resolved
good first issue
help wanted
?
needs changes
?
needs reporter feedback
?
needs triage
?
needs vote
role
engineering
role
fca
role
foa
role
fpl
role
initiative lead
role
mindshare
scope
bug
scope
improvement
scope
new
state
approved
state
blocked
state
duplicate
state
invalid
state
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
council/tickets#557
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
We had an incident in Discourse that has shown incompatibilities in the interpretations about what is allowed and what not, thus we are asking for guidance from the Council (or FESCo) to avoid conflicts in future:
When a user on Discourse has asked why they are not allowed to vote for FESCo, a Join SIG member has approached the user and offered them to temporarily add them to the Join SIG FAS group so that they can vote, and then remove them from the SIG again once they have voted (the reason the user could not vote was the CLA+1 / FPCA+1). I treated this as violation with the assumption this is an unintended abuse of powers, as this bypasses a technical restriction that was put there intentionally (original reasons for the CLA+1 restriction elaborated later by @kevin [1] - I don't repeat/cite here), while a Join SIG member determines by personal opinion who should be allowed to vote, outside the realm of their SIG and without intention that this user becomes a real member of Join SIG, and bypassing thus an intuitive filter that avoids people to vote in critical elections who have not yet been exposed to the community beyond a limited realm, thus not found out about FAS groups (which have a subtle impact/relevance) and thus did not ask for a membership on themselves. In short, I considered it an intended filter to ensure that at least the majority of users have a perspective beyond their own nose when doing critical votes, and this was intentionally bypassed (so far the core aspects of the assumption I have been working with).
This ended up in a discussion [1] that has shown that the Join SIG member's interpretation of this being allowed is shared among Join SIG. While Kevin provided an elaboration of the original reasons, there also seems to be no consent if/what to apply to the current case.
The Join SIG assumes this is ok and they will keep doing so because
(I tried to sum up the core points of the other side here as neutral as possible, but given that this reflects not my POW, you have to consider my summaries as biased and if our opinions are relevant to the subsequent questions, please review [1] to see the points in context)
We consent that there is no consent about if that is compliant or acceptable, including which side needs Council approval for their actions/preferences (thus the ticket:)
The major questions that can be derived, and which we ask the Council to answer:
-> 2 sub-questions that could become relevant depending on your answer:
1.1) Does it matter if users who didn't ask for such a membership are actively approached?
1.2) Can a SIG make the decision for such a temporary membership based on contributions of the realms of other SIG and based on personal opinions?
This phenomenon seems to have been not considered before, this being the first (known) case, and since this now has become agreed in Join SIG (and now also communicated pubclicly) that it is ok and intended, it is unclear if and how far this will be used more actively in future (thus how far moderators of channels will end up with this case again). I am not sure how many FESCo voters exist or if the argument of the hundreds of voters (?) is true and thus how far this can practically impact FESCo election outcomes at some point, so I leave this part out as far as it concerns me.
The more immediate case is obviously for moderation: what and to what extent shall we allow or ignore such cases, and when to intervene.
While the case makes clear that I have my opinion about this, I think there is agreement that the most important thing is to go in a common direction, whatever this is. So some clear guidance would be nice, e.g.,
Just some possibilities...
A side note: as far as I know, the temporary membership was intended mostly to allow wiki edits. As it is discussed if the wiki is replaced, this could be merged into a discussion if temporary memberships shall be allowed in future at all, though I do not argue in any direction about this, as I lack information if and when this is necessary (Join SIG members might correct me here).
I share this ticket link in [1] to ensure Join SIG members can review, and correct me if I summed up something wrong or so.
[1] https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/a-post-in-how-can-i-join-the-f43-fesco-election-requires-staff-attention/179007/
See linked Fedora Discussion topic for Ticket 557
Metadata Update from @jflory7:
Metadata Update from @jflory7:
Discussed during the 2026-01-14 Council meeting.
This topic was the centerpiece of a significant debate during the January 14th meeting regarding the tension between inclusivity and the potential for gaming FESCo elections via temporary memberships. We discussed the difficulty of defining "active contributors" and noted that "legacy" voting rights for inactive members are just as problematic as new temporary ones. The Council determined this topic is too complex to resolve in a single meeting and requires detailed asynchronous discussion here on Fedora Discussion rather than waiting for the 2026 Strategy Summit.
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-tickets-ticket-557-guidance-necessary-join-sig-and-temporary-memberships-for-the-sole-purpose-of-voting-in-fesco-election/179126/47
An interim guidance would be nice to avoid collisions / conflicts in the next poll, in order to allow compliant and consistent moderation
Because the Council has chosen to not provide any provision or guidance in this matter but still leaves it to the community, the remaining authority to tailor to, or to derive from, is FESCo. The few FESCo members, who have added their opinion+preference about this matter (3), have all preferred that temporary memberships shall not be used for this purpose, 2 in general and 1 at least until there is a Council-approved formal policy that regulates it.
Since this is the closest we have to a guidance/provision, I will enforce the rules this way in the channels I am a moderator in for the time being.
I'm afraid this is not a FESCo matter, and the preference of a few members cannot be taken to mean new community policy/guidance. Please, let's leave this until the council weigh in. What is the urgency that makes you push for a decision here? Are you seeing cases of abuse, or is this now a matter of coming up with rules for the sake of "consistency"?
We do not "enforce" anything, Chris. We are not the community police that ensures that everyone "does the same thing". We enable the community, with the minimum amount of moderation necessary for it to function well---with common sense and trust prevailing over "rules".
I will not weigh in again here and I would please request that you do not either. In the meantime, let's continue to use common sense and trust---which is in line with the CoC's "be excellent to each other" guidance.
That is my preference too. But the next polls begin tomorrow, and that's why I push:
Not yet, but the last I know is a consensus of Join SIG that this is fine to do. As things remain unclear, I cannot exclude that this is now an agreed means that is to come beginning tomorrow in an organized way. If Join SIG would start to use this means in an organized manner, the people they consider contributor in the realm they are active in would be sole and unrepresentative beneficiary (making the latter potentially over-represented, especially compared to engineers who have to be steered by FESCo -> 20 cases would be already 10 % impact on the polls).
Therefore, unclarity, what is allowed, what not. What to do if that is done? I can only work with the information I have (incl. about others intentions to use this means). I can argue that I would not comply in both possibilities I have. Therefore, the only way to create a consistent and predictable experience is to go ahead and take the only source of consistency I have: so far, that is a tendency of FESCo.
I aim to make things predictable if something happens, and ensure that it is at least clear how a mod operates: otherwise, 50/50 chance.
If Join SIG would start using this means given the absence of Council guidance, I have myself this 50/50, both is compliant, both is not. So I just make clear in advance what 50% I choose to offer a predictable experience. And I do it based on the only source I have.
That said, if Join SIG does not make use of this means and does what you suggest - which is to wait for the Council to weigh in - then we have a consensus about this: nothing will happen :) I just want to ensure that no unpredictable conflicts rise, and that Join SIG does what you fear me to do -> derive something that is contrary to the other's' preference. What I posted today is merely passive, and will not lead to any actions if the other remains passive too.
If I understand your point right, I assume we have no problem here but a consensus: wait for the Council before any further action related to this matter (including actions on our side). Hope that makes sense?
Part of the earlier problem was that I think both sides think that the respectively other's preference does not fulfill this excellenec criteria anyway. When you ask for excellence, the question remains which of the two sides this means. This is therefore not really a useful argument here. For me, it is not excellent if one group decides their environment shall have more rights than the environment of others, with the latter would not benefit from their means, in a situation in which just a few cases can reach a difference in the 2-digit percentage, and in which the disadvantaged environment contains most of the people that are most affected by the result. While the system is not 1:1, it had a type of balance that could roughly regulate itself. If one group adds a means to bypass the means of balancing compared to others, it gets imbalanced, with one group being incapable to compensate if something would develop to an "apparent imbalance".
This is not about my earlier post, and and more a personal note: I just try to make my reasoning, also of earlier, clearer and maybe more comprehensible :) But also the "why" of my earlier post :)
I think we have a consensus and mean the same, I thus updated my comment in the topic to avoid further confusion :)
Our voting guide is published in our docs. It does not mention you need to be in a SIG to vote. It mentions be part of a non-cla group in FAS, which could include being a packager, wikiedit group, etc. You need to satisfy this voting criteria to vote in Fedora Elections. That is the current, documented guidance. If the Join SIG is updating their responsibilities to include instances where they would like to grant temporary membership to some folks for voting purposes, I strongly encourage them to open a discussion with the project governance groups who would be impacted by this - FESCo and EPEL.
I will be closing this ticket if there are no objections from the other council members as this issue does not concern the council at this time*.
*A wider discussion on SIGs in general does, and will likely happen as a result of this discussion surfacing some mismatched ideas and even documentation on Fedoras SIGs which council will absolutely be part of.