On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 15:27 -0500, inode0 wrote: > 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 > +1 to that. Take me for example, I've been around for sometime and heave _HEARD_ all the candidates names somewhere or the other, and read their mails on the lists and maybe taken help from them sometime over the IRC etc. However, I agree with what John had written earlier.. "Well, letting a much broader segment of the Fedora community vote causes a disconnect with me. If they aren't "fit" to run for an open seat why are they "fit" to elect those who are?" I still don't think I'm fit to vote.. :| -- regards, Ankur -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
