On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Josh Boyer wrote:
With that in mind I want a picture of the breakdown between redhat and
non-redhat voters so I can know if we have done an appropriate job
communicating the importance of the board elections out into the
external community.
Just assume we haven't done an appropriate job. With a 6% voter
turnout, we have failed regardless.
Really? Why?
Why is a 6% turnout necessarily a failure?
IMHO, a properly functioning governance body *should* be so effective that
no one cares much either way when it comes time to replace the membership.
From my perspective, low turnout means low dissatisfaction. All other
indicators seem to point to continued success for Fedora and its
contributors.
If there were endemic problems to the Fedora project that people wanted to
fix, well, then, there's a mechanism for the disaffected to create change.
If no one feels compelled to use that mechanism, is it necessarily a bad
thing?
I myself almost didn't vote. Why? Because I liked the entire slate of
candidates. In the end, I did vote, and I voted entirely for non-RH
candidates on principle... but I firmly believe that everyone elected will
do a great job, and I firmly believe that everyone not elected would also
have done a great job.
--g
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
