On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Saturday, August 24, 2013 11:38 PM, drago01 wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Mathieu Bridon >> <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, August 23, 2013 08:34 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Paul Wouters <pwouters@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Chris Murphy wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but there are essentially two camps >>>>>>> right now. Those that don't care about release names one bit (like >>>>>>> me), and those that do. If those that do care want better names, >>>>>>> they'll need to work harder at creating meaningful suggestions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK I'm third camp: peanut gallery. I don't really care about release >>>>>> names, I'm happier to see them go away, but insofar as we have them, >>>>>> I'm >>>>>> playing along by a.) voting, b.) complaining. [1] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be good if the next vote would allow "none" as an option. I >>>>> could not vote 'none' on the last election. And I think it is important >>>>> to track the percentage of people who want to kill the meaningless >>>>> names. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That's a good suggestion for future votes. >>>> >>>> At the moment, the best you can do is cast 0 votes for all choices. >>>> That won't really change the outcome, but at least votes will be >>>> recorded. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's in fact what I did. >>> >>> That begs the question: what if the elected word has received a very low >>> score compared to the maximum possible? >>> >>> That would mean that it received a very small support from our community, >>> and in fact that the majority was either voting for no name or for none >>> of >>> the proposed names. >>> >>> If that happened, would we decide that Fedora would not be named, because >>> no >>> proposal managed to raise enough support? >> >> >> That's nonsense. A non vote may have different reasons you cannot >> simply put them into one category. The most common reason for non >> voting is lack of carrying. So the best way to deal with non votes is >> to ignore them (like pretty much any reasonable election process >> does). > > > I didn't say non-vote from people who don't care, I said people who do care > and actively vote for none of the proposals. That's very different. OK, if there is an active none option and that option wins sure. > And no matter the reason why that would happen, the fact is that if the > maximum possible for a name is 8000 (8 names, 1000 voters) and the best name > is elected with e.g 100 points, then that means that even the most voted for > failed to receive the support of the voters, and that as a result it doesn't > represent them. > > If that happened, would we still go with a name that doesn't represent even > the people who made the effort of voting? The election process says "the one with the highest source win" which makes sense. If we have a "none" option that can be selected and also automatically wins when the source of the wining name is "to low" then this would be a skewed process. So picking the winning name would be the better choice yes. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
