On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 14:21 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > 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. You should get awarded a Pulitzer for spin right there. "low turnout" == "low dissatisfaction"?! Where the heck have you seen that happen in real life? Because everywhere else I read about low turnouts in elections, they were explained by low interest, apathy, dissatisfaction with the candidates, lack of understanding of how it affects people. Never, ever, have I seen people say "I'm too happy to bother voting". First point I'd like to comment: This has been a long thread (and an interesting read at that). There were some leaders that rose up from the community - as small and flawed as it might be - and some of those leaders got hired by Red Hat. Now they've been elected to the Board and Red Hat catches flak for it because their latest email address is @redhat.com?! Basic response would be "get over it" or "you too can apply for a job at Red Hat and be just like those guys". Related - Voting for "community guys" "on principle". That is bullshit. You vote for the guy that is most likely to represent your line of thought on issues that matter to you. Linux, Red Hat, and Fedora have been built on the principles of meritocracy. Politics have nothing to do with it. Smart guys in the community will continue to be hired by Red Hat as soon as they prove themselves worthy. It is a fact of life - @redhat.com email addresses will dominate the list. A place on the Board should be earned - there is no "wrong" to correct here with an affirmative-action-wannabe. Second: The formalized goals, platform, balancing the community crap brings big style politics into the small world of Fedora community. And just as in the big time politics, look at what it does to elections. It should be simpler than that. Can somebody express themselves clearly in public, without offering bits of clarifications in a long 200-message thread? If you could not observe, ask your beef directly. Heck, make every candidate hold a few hours of interviewing on irc to answer questions. Don't take this the wrong way, but the goals and platforms put forth in this elections were pathetic. No wonder, when most were trying to say "I'll do more of the same" in a more buzzword-compliant way. Third: Getting over the low probability of bad things happening, does the Fedora community has the strength to survive if Red Hat pulls out of its commitments? The answer is simple - no. Is there enough leadership outside @redhat.com now to make it work if something like that were to happen tomorrow? No. ointing this without a concrete proposal to solve it doesn't help, and getting defensive about it doesn't help either. "We're not there yet" is the common line. The more interesting mental exercise here is to guess how many of the people @redhat.com would continue to keep their @redhat.com email address instead of switching to @fedoraproject.org were Red Hat to drop Fedora. Those guys that would make the switch, if they exist, can fill in the future community leadership roles. But this is an academic exercise, and a very pointless one at that, since food still costs money. Well, that about sums up my feelings about the hour+ I spent reading the back and forths. Cristian -- Cristian Gafton _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
