On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 05:21:29PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 31. 07. 24 v 15:12 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 5:54 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > That would be exactly what I described above as "grievance-based voting". > > > > You talk about "tyranny of the (loud) minority", but I think the limits are > the key. If there needed to be e.g. 20 contributors to raise the concern > with the voting, that is hardly minority (considering there was ~200 voters > in FESCo elections). But then there is the voting itself, where there would > e.g. 200 contributors (and there could also be required minimal quorum) > could express their opinion if the FESCo decision was correct/incorrect. > > IOW I don't think it would be that easy to find those 20 contributors to > even start the voting. The relevant metric isn't how many people voted, but how many people are eligible to vote - which is a much much larger number than 200. Finding 20 out of the eligible voter pool is a pretty low bar. Having global referendums on difficult issues isn't any guarantee that people are going to come out of the process any more happy than with the current system. Campaigning for & against referendum topics can easily lead to further entrenched division / hostility between people on each side. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ 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
