On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Now, let's say that you're one of the people who is running around > thinking that pushing updates is a good idea for Fedora. You've > probably also deluded yourself into thinking that that's something > that has made Fedora great from day-one. You see the increasing > number of people who are using. Now, how are you going to effect > change? From your viewpoint, you need to control all of the elected > seats in order to have a simple majority in this equation. If you are relying on elected power to effect change..instead of discussion and persuasion..then..uhm... increasing the number of elected seats does not help. Right now you have to have 5 elected seats to force through a radical view. If we move to 9 elected seats.....you still have to have 5 elected seats to force through a radical view. The math doesn't change...the difficulty of getting a majority of people elected who take a radical view doesn't change. You aren't fundamentally changing the bar to necessary to ram through a radical change. This whole chain of logic is just simply wrong. I cannot stress this enough. You are groping for a reason to support moving to a fully elected seat because you have a pre-existing personal preference for elected bodies. I get it. But we must look past that knee-jerk preference..take a step back and really look at what the problems are that need to be solved. Making governance changes that do not specifically address an existing dysfunction is a recipe to introduce more dysfunction with no observable benefit. -jef _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
