I was thinking of it for quite a long now. If a person is an active Fedora Ambassador, can he be an Ambassador (or related term) on another project? The answer is conditional “no” and “yes” so lets take a look on those conditions :
Ambassadors and related sub-projects
I am going to assume here that “Ambassadors” within Fedora are the hard-core supporters, and I am doing that because “by design” Ambassadors are those that actively recruit new Fedorians and spread the word of Fedora. You cannot do that unless you are focused and determined. Likewise projects like OpenSuse and others have their take on Ambassadors. So here is the thing :
“If you are a Fedora Ambassador, you cannot be in a similar sub-project of another distribution”
Imagine being in a booth and been asked “Which distro should I try?” What would be the answer? … There is a small exception here. I believe that some target-specific distros (like super-light ones, or for embedded devices) can be actively promoted by a Fedora Ambassador. But this happens because there is a different target group, and then again there are not well formed groups as Ambassadors.
What about other parts of the project?
I do not believe that there is any blocker into being part of any Fedora sub-project other than Ambassadors and in the similar sub-project on other Distro. This happens a lot nowadays. We share translators with Ubuntu, packagers with Debian, marketers with OpenSuse and Designers with Mint (random examples). The whole foss ecosystem runs well and benefits from exchanging ideas and people resources. But this cannot be the case for Ambassadors.
What about other foss projects (not distros)?
Of course you should be free to support and promote any other foss project (like Mozilla, LibreOffice etc) in any ways that you can. This will add up to your foss contribution and make our world a little more Free and Open Source 
Is this the “law”?
The above mentioned views are some thoughts I have on the subject. I am determined to form them with feedback from the whole community so we can reach a decision within FAmSCo (Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee – the ruling body of Ambassadors). Then we will have a directive on this subject and we can enforce it or take action on that. Most probably “action” will be to actively persuade people to make up their minds and explain the situation
Why are we doing this?
I am determined that by shading a light on this not-clarified issue of our Ambassadors project, will both help Ambassadors thrive and be sure on their position, and will also clarify our connections and relations with other Distros. It is for sure for the best of our project
Feel free to comment on this post or on our mailing list.
#1 by Danny Moules on January 27, 2011 - 12:21 pm
“Imagine being in a booth and been asked “Which distro should I try?” What would be the answer? …”
There’s a very easy resolution to this: Be honest.
I advocate and stand for Mozilla – but I’ve recommended Safari, Chrome and yes, even IE, to others as appropriate.
If your ‘title’ requires you to answer someone’s question with zeal and dishonesty, instead of actually answering their question to the best of your ability and with your own subjective slant, then there’s much bigger issues than a mere conflict of interest that need resolving first.
#2 by Alex Hudson on January 27, 2011 - 8:28 pm
If Fedora was the be-all and end-all, I’d possibly agree somewhat. Sad thing is, even amongst desktop-oriented distros, there are situations you wouldn’t recommend Fedora. I don’t think being an Ambassador means you need to ignore Fedora’s weaknesses, it just requires that you be positive about the project and help promote it. Sometimes that means saying, “Fedora isn’t right for you”.
#3 by Pierros Papadeas on January 27, 2011 - 8:57 pm
@Danny and Alex
That is exactly my point. To our target group (everyday Desktop usage) Fedora provides the best out of Linux Distributions (Community, Speed, Technology, Stability etc) No need to “lie” or be “dishonest”.
If the usage needed is something else then of course Fedora is not the way to go (quite possibly).
The argument stands for likewise Distros with same target group.
Thanks for you comments
#4 by Marcus on January 27, 2011 - 9:32 pm
Dear Pierros,
“If you are a Fedora Ambassador, you cannot be in a similar sub-project of another distribution”
if so I have to leave the Fedora Ambassadors, because I also activly promote CentOS.
Kind Regards
Marcus
#5 by Pierros Papadeas on January 27, 2011 - 9:35 pm
@marcus I hope that you have read the post…
CentOS does not have the same scope with Fedora. Thus there is no COI. If CentOS was mainly targeted as Desktop Distro then there would be a COI
Hope you understand the difference.
#6 by Marcus on January 27, 2011 - 10:00 pm
In general I would not like to restrict anyone, as long as he/she does a good job in his/her role(s).
E.g. I would rather like to call myself an ambassador of Free Software and Open Source, not of a specific project (even if I am member of).
Marcus
#7 by bochecha on January 28, 2011 - 5:10 am
> Imagine being in a booth and been asked “Which distro should I try?” What would be the answer?
I’d say it would be the one that most suits the asking person’s needs.
Being an ambassador does NOT consist of repeating “Thou shalt use Fedora”. It’s about honest promotion, and being able to recognize when the stuff you are promoting is inferior to another one or simply not adapted.
I’m recommending Ubuntu to lots of people, and I’m still a Fedora ambassador{, mentor}.
I also think that you are confusing two different concepts: the project and the product (distro). I think as ambassadors we should promote the project, its goals and vision. People who adhere to those goals will eventually choose to use the product, and probably even contribute to the project. If they don’t share the goals, why bother?
People should be happy with the project they rely on/participate in, and IMHO that goes through sharing the goals and vision of this project.
This is why I often recommend Ubuntu to some people. Ubuntu has a different set of goals, and when those goals are more aligned to a certain person, then I should not try to hide that fact and recommend them Fedora at all costs.
Note that I took Ubuntu as an example because it’s the one that I know best after Fedora. I spent a lot of time at events with the Ubuntu-Fr crew, and I learnt a lot about their project and its goals. The same would be true for any other project, but I only speak about what I know.
#8 by Danny Moules on January 28, 2011 - 2:18 pm
“To our target group (everyday Desktop usage) Fedora provides the best out of Linux Distributions (Community, Speed, Technology, Stability etc) No need to “lie” or be “dishonest”.”
Even if you feel that way about the ‘stereotype’ user, you’re going to be wrong much of the time. Example: Fedora doesn’t have [x] drivers, thus suggesting it to a user with hardware [x] is a fool’s errand.
I disagree hugely with the definition of an ‘Ambassador’ as you give it- and the taste it leaves in my mouth encourages me not to suggest Fedora in the future (and I often suggest Fedora – it’s a good product).
I don’t see that as an advocate you should be ‘actively recruiting’. It’s not a cult. An advocate is not a salesperson trying to sell the product to an unsuspecting buyer.
Advocate doesn’t mean sales representative. It just means a representative. Someone to speak about the merits of a product. With that definition, there’s nothing to stop you advocating for two products at the same time.
I would hate to wrongly suggest someone use Firefox, which I represent, and form a poor opinion of it because it is unsuitable. That would be a failure on my part as a representative, an advocate, of the product. I have a responsibility as a Firefox advocate to sometimes advocate and/or sell somebody else’s product. Not least because what Firefox stands for is a better web for everybody – not just Firefox users.
#9 by Pierros Papadeas on January 28, 2011 - 2:37 pm
@ Danny.
First of all thank you for your comment
I do not give a “definition of Ambassadors”, I am simply remarking upon the paradox of suggesting a distro that defaults non-free software (let say) while you are a Fedora Ambassador.
Although this (suggesting another DIstro) can be done sometimes as a last resort (weird hardware configurations) someone cannot hold two positions about promoting something with totally different ideals and values. (and we are speaking about “the project” as bochecha said)
Once again, I am speaking solely for Ambassadors.
ps. I also represent Mozilla (and not simply Firefox), but Mozilla does not have an equivalent to “Ambassadors” yet.
#10 by Kostas Antonakoglou on January 28, 2011 - 3:55 pm
First of all, we should agree that a Fedora Ambassador is a FOSS Ambassador (Fedora is an OS that surrounds other free software) and also agree that a Fedora Ambassador may not harm the ideals of the Fedora project.
An ambassador gives information based on the goals and ideals of a project.
So, by promoting any project that could be inside Fedora (obviously a different interest area surrounded by Fedora) you do no harm to anyone.
A distro with a different scope (eg. CentOS) but with same goals and ideals is OK too.
Another “similar” distro (eg. Debian)? It should be very well chosen not to create contradictions. Danny said “be honest” and I agree. And that leads us back to the start of the comment.
We need to clearly state and remember well the goals of the project
#11 by Danny Moules on January 28, 2011 - 5:24 pm
Whilst I understand that my more fundamental concern is with the ‘Ambassador’ concept, as opposed to this proposed restriction I cannot, for the reasons stated, agree that those are “a last resort (weird hardware configurations) “. Such conditions are normal.
You must take into account existing, skills, drivers, critical application support, aesthetic tastes (big Chrome driving point, whether you agree or not), monitor sizes, internet providers (many 3G dongles, etc don’t work with open OSes), what phone people use, what systems are already on the network, what languages people use (can your OS be made to support Quenya? If not, I won’t use it as a desktop machine! Sounds weird? Sure, but lots of people use lots of scripts your software might not support!), availability of consultancy, availability of tech support, license niggles, do you know the programmers if you need new stuff? etc, etc, etc. I’m just rolling these off the top of my head. These decisions are very complex.
Those concerns are the norm, not a freak exception. They relate to every decision. They are not ‘edge cases’. Everyone is different.
Moving away from that:
I put my full weight behind the EFF, the ASF and Mozilla. Their goals often contradict. In fact, it’s almost impossible to think of any two groups that one can ideologically align to without upsetting the other group in some circumstance. When they do contradict, I want to make the right choice to the best of my ability. That doesn’t mean I ‘betray’ Mozilla because I throw my weight behind ASF over a decision that affects both. If I tell people ‘don’t use Firefox because Apache have [x] concerns’ I don’t think that makes me a failure to Mozilla.
As a scientist, the idea that Mozilla would turn around and say ‘well you can’t represent us anymore’ would strike me as utterly illogical and more than a little hurtful. I can still serve them just as well. I will be even MORE fired up to resolve the contentious issue in fact.
I just don’t see how this policy can be anything other than asking people to be dishonest or unfaithful to other groups they care about. It can only be negative. It doesn’t serve any purpose than to ostracize people who want to be honest about their allegiances. It’s a standard reactionary response to somebody waving another flag, to see them as a ‘black sheep’ – but it’s not logical to do so. There’s no benefit in treating them differently.
#12 by Kostas Boukouvalas on January 30, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Very good post. In fact the problem is deeper Pierros and you know it. The “party plan” (see wikipedia) these people create, the tactics which are rooted back to “selling seaweeds for silk ribbons” and a bunch of other disgusting actions they take are a lot far from the participation in a floss community.
You should read the self-criticism they make on their blogs. Its funny if you don’t know them, but because we now know them fully, Ι can say that they are sly and dangerous.
But the encouraging thing is that they start to realize they are not part of the FLOSS community.