On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 14:21 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > 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? A bit of hyperbole on my part to illustrate a point. > 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. Low turnout can either mean low dissatisfaction, or high apathy. > 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? Is it an end-of-the-world-we-suck thing? No, probably not. But I do feel it's important to get as much of the voting body to vote as possible. > 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. As do I. But that might not always be the case. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
