On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andreas Thienemann <andreas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Fedora has always been (more or less) a meritocracy. Whoever does the > work, has the power to define the direction fedora is taking. This I believe is the hardest nut to crack with Fedora elections. The Fedora Board and FESCo and others think of themselves as being part of a meritocracy (at least that is my perception of what they think) but at the same time are trying to encourage more widespread democratic participation which naturally runs counter to perpetuating the meritocracy. Candidates actions historically speak volumes about them in Fedora elections as the few doing the electing know them. With wide open elections where voters do not know the candidates all sorts of new problems arise and the expectations and demands of naive voters seem to be a silly burden to the candidates. The same people are getting elected either way because the same people thus far self-nominate and voter participation remains low. I'm not sure what the perceived benefit was of making the election process more open, other than more open seems a good thing to us instinctively. John -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
