[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy
From:       Vít_Ondruch <vondruch () redhat ! com>
Date:       2020-05-12 8:18:58
Message-ID: 85ba8387-1ca7-46ec-e9ce-246855429d18 () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
>> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an unusual voting
>> situation for the first time: Four FESCo members voted in favor (+1)
>> of a measure and five FESCo members opted to abstain (0) for various
>> reasons. However, the FESCo voting policy currently reads: "A majority
>> of the committee (that is, five out of nine) is required to pass a
>> proposal in a meeting." As a result, we were actually at an impasse
>> until two of the FESCo members opted to change their votes to +1 to
>> resolve the confusion.
>>
>> It was subsequently suggested that we revise the policy to avoid this
>> pitfall in the future. I volunteered to put together a proposal for
>> how this could work and send it to the Fedora Development list for
>> discussion. I propose the following changes to the FESCo voting
>> policy:
>>
>> * To pass any measure, a majority — defined as the greater of half the
>> eligible votes (rounded up) — must vote in favor of the measure. The
>> standard set of eligible votes is one vote per FESCo member. No
>> measure may pass without at least one vote in favor.
>>
>> * Abstaining from a vote (aka "voting 0") is considered to have
>> removed that FESCo member's vote from the set of eligible votes. This
>> must be done explicitly and is never to be assumed from lack of
>> communication.
>>
>> A practical effect of the new abstention rule is that if two FESCo
>> members abstain, the measure would then require only a +4 vote to
>> pass. (A single abstention would still require a +5 vote).
> I don't like this idea.
>
> I think if FESCo members don't have enough data or understanding to
> vote on the topic, this means that FESCo needs to put more effort in
> it.
>
> Find some subject matter experts in the community, make additional
> steps to learn the subject.
> Or, when topic has no technical foundation but more of the personal
> preference, bring it for a full community vote.
>
> In the end FESCo supposed to channel the community voice.
> If FESCo can not make a decision, it means delegation of the decision
> to FESCo by community failed. So let's go back to community?
>
> So how about the alternative:
> if FESCo can't come up with the decision, it announces the stalled
> decision to fedora-announce and requests help. Better summary, more
> arguments, etc..
>
> This would encourage people who are against the change to participate.


I agree with Aleksandra up until here.


> And if there are no such people to provide convincing arguments
> against the change in a reasonable time frame, than FESCo decides in
> favor of the submitter.


I disagree here. If such proposal does not have enough support, then it
should not be accepted and should be revisited/abandoned/rejected. I
cannot imagine any even hypothetical situation where the opposite was
beneficial.


Vít

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]