From Fedora Project Wiki

The Fedora Outreach Steering Committee is a task (probably the main one) in the workflow of the last FAmSCo.

There is a ticket open to collect suggestions. The meeting held on June 26 clarified the status of the workflow.

Starting point

See comment #11 by Cwickert in the ticket

Answering to the questions below marked the beginning of work:

  1. What are FOSCos functions, duties, and rights?
  2. How is FOSCo composed (number of seats, from which groups etc)?
  3. How is FOSCo constituted (elected vs. appointed members)?

The replies to these questions led to the work in progress.


So which proposal are currently under discussion? Summarizing:

First proposal

  1. functions:
    • primary channel of communication amongst groups (I'm considering it a bit different than commops function; commops is for "doing", FOSCo is for "think" IMHO).
    • propose budget and its allotment (in place of FAmSCo)
    • propose marketing strategies
    • propose engineering and system strategies
    • get in touch with local communities
    • document the state of the os
    • gather the community requests
  2. Composition:
    • seat for FESCo (two?)
    • seat for Ambassador (one for each region)
    • seat for marketing (one for marketing and one for magazine)
    • seat for docs
    • seat for tranlations
    • seat for commops
    • seat for the release wrangler
    • seat for the SIGs representative (nominated by the SIGs members)
  3. elections:
    • each FOSCo member have to be elected by its own group except the release wrangler (who is the person in charge for the release) and the SIGs representative (nominated as above explained).

Of course FOSCo should nominate the one who'll be the link with Council

Second proposal

General assumptions

    • Design should be similar to the Council
      • We want meritocracy, that's why we want want appointed representatives rather than elected members
        • we can still elect some seats though.
  1. Size
    • The bigger the number gets the, the harder decision making becomes.
    • We should use an uneven number to avoid standoffs
  2. Keep is simple!
    • Minimize overlap with other bodies (council, FESCo)
  3. Lazy consensus


  1. FOSCo is to lead and coordinate all outreach efforts.
    • mainly coordination between ambassadors, design team and marketing
    • coordination among the regions
    • Limit the scope strictly to outreach. Engineering is FESCo's business and the overall strategy is up to the council. Let's not get in their way.
  2. Manage the regional budget
    • the regional budget will still be managed by the regions, FOSCo is the POC for the council much in the way as FAmSCo is now.


  1. Appointed members
    • Outreach and impact lead
    • FPL (only if necessary and he/she wants to)
  2. Representatives
    • 4 from the regions (appointed by the regional ambassadors communities)
    • 1 from the design team
    • 1 from marketing
  3. elected members
    • 2 elected seats (elected by the ambassadors, design and marketing groups)
  4. auxiliary members
    • 1 from docs
    • 1 from translations
    • other representatives as necessary, e.g. Fedora Magazine, WGs, SIGs (depending on the project we are working on)

This makes it a total of 9 seats + outreach and impact lead.

Third proposal

9 of the FOSCo members (fixed positions) would be elected by meritocracy:

  • Fedora Project Leader
  • Outreach Representative
  • 4 representatives from regions (1 for each region)
  • 1 representative from CommOps?
  • 1 representative from Design
  • 1 representative from Marketing

The other member would be from the others sub-projects and SIGs.


  • Currently FAmSCo is discussing about "meritocracy" and is picking coordinators from groups really interested to have a seat. Cwickert is also the representative person for updating Council about the progress in the workflow.
  • last meeting log held on 06 July 2016
  • accordingly to the result of "meet your FAmSCo" at Flock, we decided to start with only 4 groups (Ambassadors - Marketing - Design - Commops) to keep the beginning very simple and fluid, trying to avoid long discussions about the establishment. At the moment we have three proposal and, in the wait one of them will be chosen, we have the need to build the foundations of the upcoming FOSCo. Other groups are still in the list because they will take on board as soon as possible.

Groups joined FOSCo

Group Coordinator
Ambassadors TBD
Marketing jflory7
G11n noriko
Design gnokii
Docs zoglesby
Websites mailga
CommOps jflory7

Schedule/next steps


  1. set up a doole/whenisgood poll. -> whenisgood open by cwickert -> results done
  2. invite famsco + representatives done
  3. once they have agreed to a time, invite everybody else by mail to their list done
  4. Milestone meeting held on 2016-07-18
  5. Milestone decision in the "meet your FAmSCo" session at Flock to start off with a small core.


  • scheduling until the Monday 4th out of date
  • meeting in the week starting with the 11th out of date

Other considerations

  • Please read the comment #25 by jflory7 in the ticket #373
  • I believe that is in the interest of a future FOSCo to definitely include a seat for CommOps in the final proposal. A lot of the work that FOSCo aims to help address (in targeted, specific areas) is similar or will have some overlap to the type of work that CommOps is already doing. Having a seat reserved for a CommOps member will help add a perspective to the committee that has a balanced perspective of the project and can help provide direct assistance in improving communication between sub-projects. --Jflory7 (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • however I also believe that the first FOSCo settlement should be composed by the same people will attend the big meeting above mentioned, because they have to fix all the issues will happen in the first phase and no one can do this better than people that discussed the FOSCo agreement at the beginning. Maybe we could establish a little period for this first FOSCo, before elections. gabri 10 July 2016