On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 13:41 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I can agree with this also. Where I was raised, a person who nominated > themselves was the worst person to run something. I want to pull this out for discussion. It seems like there is a spectrum here, rather than one or two set ways of being. For example, you and John have concerns about self-nomination being abhorrent to people. In cultures where that is more normal, how many people just go ask someone to nominate them? Is that taboo as well? On one end are people who just won't put themselves forward as leaders, despite their obvious qualities. On the other end are people who will always put themselves forward as leaders, regardless of their qualities. In Fedora, we have a huge mix of cultures, and yes, you are going to find that some specific cultures typically do not put themselves forward, out of modesty, etc. Then the people from that culture who do are either as you say (least trustworthy) or they people who have adapted the most to another culture that dominates the election methodology. But yet, in places known for their modesty, be they South Carolina or Japan, there are people who run for office, are elected, and do either a good, bad, or so-so job. How do we account for all of that? FWIW, I'm deeply concerned that our Fedora way of doing democracy is very different than what other countries need. I've no idea if we can do one overarching governance system that appeals to all cultural backgrounds. Hopefully, the process can be localized in terms of culturen where people interact more closely, such as the subProject/SIG level. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
