Am Dienstag, 10. Jänner 2023 08:25:27 CET schrieb Zbigniew
Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 11:53:17PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
No, the result is NOT why I got the impression that the vote
was rigged. The way that result was obtained is.
Exactly, you're just confirming what I wrote above.
Nonsense! Where am I confirming anything? (Quite the opposite, in fact!)
Why do you keep completely missing the point of what I wrote?
A "vote being rigged" means that either the people who should
be allowed to vote couldn't, or that people who are not allowed
to vote did, or that voters were tricked or forced to vote
differently, or that votes were miscounted.
None of this happened in this case.
The point of the message you first replied to is that I believe that voters
may have been tricked into voting differently, by inviting only one side of
the discussion and by providing the voters with a misleadingly biased
presentation of the facts (up to baseless allegations of double standards
against the Tools Team, based only on a misunderstanding of performance
measurements).
The fact that the absolute majority of FESCo cast a vote makes
the considerations simpler, because we know that the two votes
that were not cast would not have changed the result.
It would if that were the issue at hand. It is not. The issue is with those
who did vote.
In fact, I had explained exactly that in
the remainder of the message, which you omitted from your quote and pushed
to the bottom of the mail (and even that quotes only half of it) for some
reason.
You message very verbosely explains why you think the result
should be different.
That is not "rigged". That is other people deciding differently than you.
No. The message very verbosely explains errors in the process, not in the
outcome. Inviting only one side of the discussion is inherently biased. Not
allowing sufficient time for discussion is also a way to silence dissenting
opinions. No matter whether it has been done deliberately or accidentally.
The ultimate outcome is that the vote has happened under unfair
circumstances.
Sure, I also happen to think that the result should be different. For
explanations of that, see one of my mails with clear technical objections
to this change. But that was NOT the matter of the mail to which you are
replying here. That mail was about HOW that result was obtained, pointing
out clear procedural bias that you refuse to acknowledge.
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
