Josh Boyer said the following on 04/21/2008 07:36 PM Pacific Time:
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:26 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
It is also used as a tie-breaker. We had a tie a few weeks ago over
(*holds breath*) Codeina/Codec Buddy, right there live in IRC, and
Paul had to make the decision. Not sure how often this happens. Was
his decision the will of the community just because it potentially
aligned with a portion of them? Jon is arguing, aiui, "No."
We only had a tie because the meeting was on IRC, not all Board members
were present, and the Board specifically wanted to make a decision AT
THAT TIME and not put it off until the missing member was present.
With 9 "voting members", there will never be a tie if everyone is there.
"Abstain" votes are not allowed?
That is something I've been thinking about recently.
I think we should remove the option for an elected member of FESCo or
the Board to 'abstain' or vote '+0' unless there is a legitimate
conflict of interest or reason with merit such as complete unfamiliarity
with an area. It seems to me that voting '+0' is really voting '-1'
without conviction and that dilutes the process... something along the
lines of 'if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice'.
I think voting in FESCo and the Board should be straight 'for||opposed'
votes. We are electing these people to represent us and at times, work
through hard, uninteresting issues that affect the present and future of
Fedora.
John
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
