[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy
From: Stephen John Smoogen <smooge () gmail ! com>
Date: 2020-05-13 15:05:45
Message-ID: CANnLRdgXG69C04BCeHM8675vByF8V1rfDF-1QiQkYxpqFZ5XcQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 10:34, Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Wed, 2020-05-13 at 09:27 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 09:17, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at>
> > wrote:
> > > David Kaufmann wrote:
> > > > If abstentions would lower the necessary +1 votes, this would
> > > > automatically give the author of a proposal a +1 vote for the
> > > > proposal,
> > > > depending on the author being in FESCo himself/herself.
> > >
> > > It would actually give them only half a vote. Whether a single half
> > > vote
> > > amounts to a whole vote depends on how ties are handled.
> >
> > How about making this simpler: plurality wins
> >
> > If the plurality is +1, then it passes
> > If the plurality is +0, then it goes to more discussion (or drop
> > because people are tired).
> > If the plurality is -1 then it fails
> > If there is a tie, it goes to more discussion.
> >
> > So a 4 +1, 5 0, 0 -1 means more discussion.
> >
> > Yes there will be corner cases, and ways to rig things.. there is no
> > system which is going to beat Arrow's theorem. We either deal with it
> > at the time or give up now because there is no perfect solution and
> > no
> > group of people are going to agree that there is a good solution
> > either.
>
> This will not happen because the policy says that if at least 3 people
> gave +1 and nobody gave -1, after 1 week it is approved exactly so that
> tickets are not being held in endless loops of discussions.
>
> So how is it different if it gets approved on a meeting with +4, ±5,-0
> or just waited for another few days and get auto-approved? This is the
> issue Stephen is proposing to solve.
>
>
It gives a couple of days for people to either change their minds to -1 or
to try to convince people to +1 more. At this point, if you want to have
more discussion but aren't against it, you have to vote -1 just to force it
for more discussion which leads people to having ill feelings from previous
times where this has happened.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 10:34, Igor Raits <<a \
href="mailto:ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org">ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED \
MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA512<br>
<br>
On Wed, 2020-05-13 at 09:27 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:<br>
> On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 09:17, Kevin Kofler <<a \
href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at" \
target="_blank">kevin.kofler@chello.at</a>><br> > wrote:<br>
> > David Kaufmann wrote:<br>
> > > If abstentions would lower the necessary +1 votes, this would<br>
> > > automatically give the author of a proposal a +1 vote for the<br>
> > > proposal,<br>
> > > depending on the author being in FESCo himself/herself.<br>
> > <br>
> > It would actually give them only half a vote. Whether a single half<br>
> > vote<br>
> > amounts to a whole vote depends on how ties are handled.<br>
> <br>
> How about making this simpler: plurality wins<br>
> <br>
> If the plurality is +1, then it passes<br>
> If the plurality is +0, then it goes to more discussion (or drop<br>
> because people are tired).<br>
> If the plurality is -1 then it fails<br>
> If there is a tie, it goes to more discussion.<br>
> <br>
> So a 4 +1, 5 0, 0 -1 means more discussion.<br>
> <br>
> Yes there will be corner cases, and ways to rig things.. there is no<br>
> system which is going to beat Arrow's theorem. We either deal with it<br>
> at the time or give up now because there is no perfect solution and<br>
> no<br>
> group of people are going to agree that there is a good solution<br>
> either.<br>
<br>
This will not happen because the policy says that if at least 3 people<br>
gave +1 and nobody gave -1, after 1 week it is approved exactly so that<br>
tickets are not being held in endless loops of discussions.<br>
<br>
So how is it different if it gets approved on a meeting with +4, ±5,-0<br>
or just waited for another few days and get auto-approved? This is the<br>
issue Stephen is proposing to solve.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It gives \
a couple of days for people to either change their minds to -1 or to try to convince \
people to +1 more. At this point, if you want to have more discussion but aren't \
against it, you have to vote -1 just to force it for more discussion which leads \
people to having ill feelings from previous times where this has happened.</div><div> \
</div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Stephen J \
Smoogen.<br><br></div></div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
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]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic