John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> To change abstaining to be the same as removing oneself from the pool of
> eligible voters would have the same effect as providing rubber stamps to
> changes. If folks are uncertain about a given change, it's certainly very
> valid to abstain, and if many people are abstaining, the issue is with the
> proposal, not the voters.
I think that if a FESCo member is unsure about a change, that member should
actually vote -1 and request more documentation. Then the feature can be
voted on again once that documentation is provided and the situation is
clarified. And if the situation does not improve in a timely manner, the
feature should be rejected for good, instead of revoting repeatedly in a
loop as has been done in at least one case.
Abstaining means "I don't care", not "I feel uncomfortable with this
change". The latter warrants for a -1 vote.
It looks like there are still some open questions on that systemd-resolved
feature, as can be seen in the "Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting
(2020-05-11)" thread. Surely, those should have been answered BEFORE
approving (or rejecting) this change.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
