On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Christian Schaller >> <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi Matthias and Lukas, >>> Thanks for this. Although I think we should as a formality vote on this addition, so that we have our paper trail in order. >>> >>> So I hereby ask the Working Group to vote on the inclusion of the package list provided by Lukas. >>> >>> To start with myself: >>> I vote in favour of adding these packages. >> >> I also vote in favour. > > OK, this is pretty sad. Only 2 explicit votes from the entire WG? > I'm going to assume that Lukáš at least has an implicit +1 given that > he posted the list originally. Matthias likely also has an implicit > +1. > > However, the rest of you have failed entirely. Why is that? Where > are the votes? How hard is it to read an email and reply with "+1" or > a dissenting opinion? "Many of our decisions can be made through "lazy consensus". Under this model, an intended action is announced on the mailing list, discussed, and in the absence of a group of dissenting contributors within a few days, simply done. " [1] Wouldn't this fall into this or where are the objections? (Have not seen any) ... also: "For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we will put forth a formal proposal on the mailing list with a "[Proposal for Vote] header in the email Subject: field. Working group members can vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain; a majority vote is necessary for a measure to pass with abstain votes not being included in the count. Members have one week to record their votes on an official proposal. Members who do not vote within the voting period implicitly abstain. Non-members may comment on the item and (of course) discuss on the mailing list, but are asked to refrain from putting votes on official proposal threads. " [1] Is this no longer how things work? No vote in one week is supposed to mean abstain also the thread does not have the "[Proposal for Vote]" header in the subject. So the process isn't working? Should we change it or are people simply using the "lazy consensus" rule? 1: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Governance#Making_Decisions -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop