On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 12. 05. 20 v 10:18 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > 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. Yes. > >> 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. > > > Actually, it should be also useful if position of each abstaining FESCo > member was explained. Because for myself, I can interpret 5 people > abstaining just as a lack of understanding of the issue and nothing else. +1 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
