Fedora Linux 44 Cycle - Fedora Council Representative Nomination #131
Labels
No labels
category
budget
category
docs
category
limesurvey
category
meta
category
physical events
category
swag
category
virtual events
charter
ambassadorship
charter
events
charter
recognition
good first issue
help wanted
needs
event report
needs
reporter feedback
needs
vote
scope
bug
scope
improvement
scope
new
state
approved
state
blocked
state
duplicate
state
invalid
state
wontfix
team
advocates
team
ambassadors
team
commops
team
council
team
design
team
docs
team
g11n
team
marketing
team
mindshare
team
websites-apps
No milestone
No project
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
mindshare/tickets#131
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?
The Fedora Council has a seat reserved for a Fedora Mindshare Committee representative. This seat needs to be filled so this issue ticket is a request for self or peer nominations for the seat on the Fedora Council to represent the committees' interests, etc.
Please comment your name or nominate someone for the seat. Nominations will be open for two weeks, and will close on Friday, 10th July 2026. We will then use a ticket vote (+1, -1, 0s) to select the representative if there are several nominations.
PS. Thanks for the template, @amoloney!
Like the last time, I would like to put my name up for this.
I have represented the Mindshare Committee in the previous term both during Fedora Council Strategy Summit 2026 and Flock To Fedora 2026 Fedora Mindshare Community Townhall.
I have progressed in the Mindshare Committee across all functional pillars, Regional Event Support, Digital Ambassadorship and Recognition Service (Also see).
I can do these - And a whole lot more things.
I would be most delighted to second @t0xic0der 's nomination.
Discussed in 2026-07-09 Mindshare Committee meeting.
Both @t0xic0der and @jnsamyak expressed interest in the Council Representative seat during the meeting. @t0xic0der served as the Mindshare representative to Council last term and has additional experience with Council from other involvement, so he brings valuable institutional knowledge. At the same time, @t0xic0der mentioned during the meeting that he is looking to focus on new areas this term (Digital Ambassadorship), and I think this is a good opportunity to bring @jnsamyak into the role with fresh energy. @t0xic0der has offered to help with documentation and a handover, which would make the transition smooth and ensure the knowledge is not lost.
We will decide this asynchronously via ticket vote. Please cast your vote below:
Nominations close Friday, July 10. If there are no objections, I will confirm @jnsamyak as the representative.
Assisted-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context)
+1 fresh energy!
I sense a severe disconnect on what's mentioned here in this comment by @jflory7 from what I recall to have happened during the meeting. I, for one, never mentioned about yielding the self-nomination for the Council Representative during the meeting. I did volunteer to offload the contextual information that I have collected / generated with my previous term's representative participation as mentioned here and here, while working with @jnsamyak (or whosoever might be willing to help in this regard). To add to that, I did clearly suggest voting for the nominees (which by the time of the meeting was just me, and then during the meeting, @jnsamyak).
What I did mention was stepping away from representing the recognition service - that I agree on. I do not understand how that somehow points towards my disinterest or yielding from this, or how that discussion is relevant to this topic, for that matter. Even @jflory7 acknowledged the input by assigning the recognition service to @jnsamyak by acknowledging that what I mentioned about wanting to take a break from that area. Also, there was an information shared on the ticket vote for both the nominees as mentioned here, so count me genuinely baffled to notice that the discussion summaries were plainly misrepresented!
I had my Claude instance run on both this issue ticket as well as the meeting logs -- and I did not get any confusing outcomes. If my contributions for the said proposal were not sought, I would have preferred that they were explicitly stated so, as compared to whatever disconnect took place. I would have been more than happy to pass on the torch, after establishing some needed structure around the representative's responsibilities. But not when the discussion outcomes are plain mistaken or output hallucinated - it not only greatly trivializes the enthusiastic participation but also dreadfully discourages from further involvements.
Oops, sorry @t0xic0der. Looks like I misunderstood the intention. There were a lot of topics to fit into that hour! I guess I crossed the wires. So, if both you and @jnsamyak are interested in this role, it would be a good time to think through what we do in this sort of situation. Might be a good opportunity for some governance reflection. I don't see this as a negative thing. I have been following a lot of the FESCo governance changes in the last release cycle or two, and this is the general approach that I have been trying to adhere to.
@t0xic0der wrote in #131 (comment):
We need more time to discuss this than tomorrow.
I appreciate the acknowledgement, @jflory7 - I really do but I also want to be direct about how this understates what actually happened here. What took place here was not a minor mixup - The actionable meeting summary entry posted in here - be that as it may assisted with AI tooling - was published without being verified against the meeting logs that was participated by even yourself (as you recorded the
!infoentries for). That summary (hallucinated and human-erred - I don't know and I don't care) fabricated a narrative in which I yielded the self nomination, and on that basis, vote collections not only began but it also received on from @lbazan. It is around 2300IST at my end - I am not supposed to be at the desk but maybe I am still around because I think that there still are things needing fixing and goals worth achieving. With this thin of a deadline for the voting (i.e. as planned earlier to be 10th July 2026), my nomination - which was also seconded by @theprogram would have been silently overridden by what was ended up being termed as a "process error".I could overlook the recreation of the WhenIsGood (or Rallly) link (while invalidating the old one with responses). I could also overlook a barrage of activity on the day before the first meeting of the elected term. I understand that you are occupied to the brim and there is only so much time that you can dedicate for the Mindshare Committee. But being a serious failure in unbiased facilitation, all I really want is for an accurate representation of the nominations (both @jnsamyak's and mine) for the integrity of the vote. I would like to see a correct summary being followed reflecting the nomination's activeness, acknowledge @lbazan's casted vote's disregardment under a false premise and clearly committing to verifying AI-assisted outputs against source materials before publishing them as official Mindshare Committee records. The first step of solving problems is acknowledging clearly that we have them to begin with and framing this as "not a negative thing", while might be well intentioned, sidesteps the specific harm done here - to all involved members.
Honestly, an (rather small) impulsive part of me wanted to just step away -- why bother volunteering the free time towards something when the inputs would eventually get trivialized? The version of me five years back would have gone ahead to do that too. But the current version of myself knows that this is far bigger than you @jflory7 and I. Disrespected as I feel right now having to state my intentions again from the meeting logs - I remain interested in the Council Representative seat. I know that there are problems that need fixing and processes that need improving -- but they do not substitute for accountability on the specific instance that prompted them in the first place. As I said before in the meeting and with the conversations in Flock 2026, I want to bring structure to the liaison's responsibilities so that we can have the handover at ease to whoever might be interested. I am willing to work with both the folks who interested their willingness and those who might be curious about this, to ensure that the documentation is a general as possible but not at this cost.
@t0xic0der I hear you. I am really sorry. I won't make excuses here. Instead, let's make a process that works in #133. I'd like for you to help shape this one 🙏🏻
I really have to disagree with the use of Claude to summarise our meetings. The technology simply does not work.
I am inm total agreeance with @t0xic0der and his take on this, and as he explains it is at it happened in the meeting.
I am +1 to @t0xic0der continuing in the role.
The ticket was up for almost two weeks already and everybody had their chance to put their names down prior to the meeting. Akash is always on top of tickets, and that is really important in a role like this.
+1 for @t0xic0der 👍