Dne 31. 07. 24 v 17:02 Simon Farnsworth napsal(a):
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
Of course the number is debatable. I think that as of now, there is ~1500 sponsored packagers, that is the group which should be IMHO relevant to this discussion, because this is the group which proposes changes FESCo decides about.
Vít
, 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.VítBeyond 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.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
