On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 20:29 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > 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' Those would be the only two reasons I ever vote '0'. It happens more often than you'd think. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
