On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:33:01PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:10:06PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:56:12PM -0400, Tim Burke wrote: > >> John Poelstra wrote: > >>> > >>> I wonder if the board would consider it reasonable to record the "yes" > >>> and "no" votes by member when the vote is not unanimous? I also do not > >>> think that someone should be able to abstain (which I think is more an > >>> indication of lack of resolve or ambivalence). If we elect people to > >>> make hard decisions they should do so... not ride the middle or "decide > >>> not to decide". > >>> > >> Alternatively, perhaps abstain can be accompanied with a reason. For > >> example, a case where a board member does not consider him/herself to be > >> an informed enough expert on the topic and doesn't want a comparatively > >> uninformed vote to tip the balance. In this case, which is better (or > >> what is the expectation) > >> > >> a) expect that all board members are required to invest whatever time it > >> takes to thoroughly understand ALL issues > >> > >> b) force board members to cast ill-informed votes > >> > >> c) allow board members to respectfully abstain in cases where they are > >> honestly not well versed enough on the topic; deferring to the expertiese > >> of others. > > > >It's pretty rare for us to have votes where *both* (1) a Board member > >doesn't understand the issue at hand, *and* (2) no one else in the > >call can resolve that member's understanding by answering questions. > >By which I mean, if one doesn't understand the issue, abstention is > >not as good as saying, "Can someone explain $ISSUE to me?". > > > >Typically we try not to push things to voting or decisions when there > >are major questions still floating around. It's unfair not just to > >the Board members but to the community too. For these reasons, I > >think (a) is best but the expectation is on the Board as a whole to > >have a shared understanding of the issues. > > There are cases where abstain is the right answer. For example, > conflict of interest. It's quite rare, but it can (and has) happen. That's a very good exception that proves the general rule. Thanks for bringing it up. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
pgpJ4lZXp0q5u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
