On Wednesday 31 July 2024 10:53:37 BST Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 24. 07. 24 v 20:17 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 1:46 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Dne 24. 07. 24 v 12:30 odp. Joe Orton napsal(a): > >> > >> > >> > >> Having a "majority rule" vote of e.g. packagers or provenpackagers on > >> major technical decisions would be far superior, in my view. Apache > >> communities have worked this way forever. > >> > >> > >> > >> You can always propose this as a change to our process. > > > > For what it's worth, I don't believe that this process will work well. > > I'm all for democracy, but direct democracy without compulsory voting > > inevitably leads to "grievance-based voting", where the majority of > > folks ignore the discussion and a plurality of voters with a strong > > opinion effectively stuff the ballot box. The effect is to have a > > tyranny of the (loud) minority. The closest we could get to > > "compulsory voting" would be to require a quorum of votes to be > > considered binding, but even the FESCo and Council elections > > traditionally see extremely low voter turnout. I don't think we'd be > > able to reach a sensible quorum on a referendum-based system. > > > > Actually, I think that this could help: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland#Referendums > > E.g. if we figured there are lets say 20 Fedora contributors who are > unhappy with the FESCo voting, all contributors could vote in > "referendum" to (dis)approve. > 20 contributors is far too small for the Swiss method to be a fair comparison. The Swiss system requires 50,000 eligible voters to ask for a referendum within 100 days, and Switerzland has a bit over 5 million total eligible voters; that's around 1% (it was increased in the 1970s from 30,000, when the Swiss franchise went from about 1.5 million to about 3 million). Fedora has (per https://www.redhat.com/en/open-source/articles/fedora-project-open-source-evolved) over 24,000 contributors, so to be comparable, you'd be looking at at least 200 contributors (if not 250 contributors) all willing to express unhappiness with FESCo within 100 days of a decision. And note, based on https://elections.fedoraproject.org/archives, that only about 1% of Fedora contributors vote at all. If we copy the Swiss model, that means that the only way to get a referendum going would be to get every actively voting contributor to ask for one. > > Vít > > > > > > > > > Beyond that, I don't think the current approach is actually broken. > > People elected us to make these sorts of decisions on their behalf. If > > any of us were to consistently vote in a way that the general > > community members felt is not in the interests of Fedora, then I fully > > expect and hope that we would not be re-elected. > > > > > > > > The current approach is the best one I can think of for our community: > > we have an active feedback period where anyone can (and is encouraged) > > to chime in on potential changes. I can assure you that I read that > > feedback and I expect that the other members of FESCo do the same. If > > you look at our meeting notes, you'll notice we often defer our > > decisions when a discussion remains highly active. > > > > > > > > As for the accusations of "rubber stamping" all Changes, I'd like to > > note that FESCo has declined to accept several Changes this cycle > > based on feedback. If you look at last week's minutes, you'll note > > that we discussed and rejected two proposals and approved another > > reluctantly (due to a lack of better options). > > > > > > > > By the time issues get to a FESCo vote, they've generally run through > > the discussion and have either been agreed to or the disagreement is > > clearly not going to reach a compromise, at which point FESCo has to > > make a decision. Sometimes that's going to be controversial (as in > > this case, apparently). When voting, we don't always restate our > > thought process, which admittedly means that the votes - taken in a > > vacuum - can lack context and perhaps appear unconsidered. > > > > -- _______________________________________________ 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
