On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:25:35PM +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 8:06 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 11. 05. 20 19:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > One strong argument for the proposed change is that, currently, an > > > abstention or recusal (TIL that's the proper term) is essentially > > > equivalent to a negative vote. (As long as we require +5 to pass, > > > any vote apart from +1 has the same effect.) > > > > > > In a hypothetical case where three or four FESCo members were involved > > > in a change and decided to recuse themselves, a proposal gets a very > > > high bar of 5/6 or 5/7 votes. If one or two voting members are absent, > > > the change may not even pass even if*all* non-abstaining members are > > > in favour. > > > > If that is the only problem we are trying to solve here, I think we might very > > well create a concept of formal recusal and only lower the bar on such occasion. > > I'd rather ditch the idea of a recusal. > > I don't really understand the reason behind it. > > You are on FESCo, because community voted for you to bring some expertise. > When you participate in the change, you make use of this expertise, > and you know what this change is all about, and how community will > benefit from it. > > So why would we silence you from giving us the vote on the topic, if > it is backed by your arguments and knowledge? Oh, it's not about knowledge at all in this case, but about bias and objectivity. Obviously, people who design some change can never be fully neutral. Additionally, if we assume that FESCo members vote for their changes, those changes would effectively have a lower bar than other changes, since a +1 (or more if more members are involved) would always be guaranteed. I don't like this appearance of unfairness. > And if you go for a _formal_ recuse process, how far we are going to > get? Should I stop receiving a post cards from Fedora members(not > that I've got any, but still :) ), so that they don't compromise my > decisions, when and if these members may create a Change for Fedora? I think rules should be appropriate for the problem at hand. This is a community distro, not a government procurement process, so a few lightweight rules are IMHO enough. > And what if I _like_ the idea of a Change and become a supporter? If I > decide to work on this Change? Does it make me affiliated now? If I > express support for it, should it be forbidden for me to vote? That's why I don't think a *formal* recusal process is appropriate. To answer your particular question: if you say "+1, this looks great, I'll also participate in the implementation", a recusal would not be appropriate at all. > I'd rather not bring these layers of political complexities into FESCo. > > I believe we should be driven by the technology aspect, and your > knowledge and skills don't change based on who submits a Change, you > evaluate the change based on the content of the Change, and you should > vote for it. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
