Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a): > Hi, > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an unusual voting >> situation for the first time: Four FESCo members voted in favor (+1) >> of a measure and five FESCo members opted to abstain (0) for various >> reasons. However, the FESCo voting policy currently reads: "A majority >> of the committee (that is, five out of nine) is required to pass a >> proposal in a meeting." As a result, we were actually at an impasse >> until two of the FESCo members opted to change their votes to +1 to >> resolve the confusion. >> >> It was subsequently suggested that we revise the policy to avoid this >> pitfall in the future. I volunteered to put together a proposal for >> how this could work and send it to the Fedora Development list for >> discussion. I propose the following changes to the FESCo voting >> policy: >> >> * To pass any measure, a majority — defined as the greater of half the >> eligible votes (rounded up) — must vote in favor of the measure. The >> standard set of eligible votes is one vote per FESCo member. No >> measure may pass without at least one vote in favor. >> >> * Abstaining from a vote (aka "voting 0") is considered to have >> removed that FESCo member's vote from the set of eligible votes. This >> must be done explicitly and is never to be assumed from lack of >> communication. >> >> A practical effect of the new abstention rule is that if two FESCo >> members abstain, the measure would then require only a +4 vote to >> pass. (A single abstention would still require a +5 vote). > I don't like this idea. > > I think if FESCo members don't have enough data or understanding to > vote on the topic, this means that FESCo needs to put more effort in > it. > > Find some subject matter experts in the community, make additional > steps to learn the subject. > Or, when topic has no technical foundation but more of the personal > preference, bring it for a full community vote. > > In the end FESCo supposed to channel the community voice. > If FESCo can not make a decision, it means delegation of the decision > to FESCo by community failed. So let's go back to community? > > So how about the alternative: > if FESCo can't come up with the decision, it announces the stalled > decision to fedora-announce and requests help. Better summary, more > arguments, etc.. > > This would encourage people who are against the change to participate. I agree with Aleksandra up until here. > And if there are no such people to provide convincing arguments > against the change in a reasonable time frame, than FESCo decides in > favor of the submitter. I disagree here. If such proposal does not have enough support, then it should not be accepted and should be revisited/abandoned/rejected. I cannot imagine any even hypothetical situation where the opposite was beneficial. Vít _______________________________________________ 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
