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

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy
From:       Chris Murphy <lists () colorremedies ! com>
Date:       2020-05-13 22:47:36
Message-ID: CAJCQCtRDxe1ZbZ2H5St2pEqbN+08V8uVD24Ebs_oZmk8N9cyww () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 AM David Kaufmann <astra@ionic.at> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:44:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The rules you propose there lead to the ridiculous effect that people who
> > want to astain will instead actually leave the meeting […]
>
> Yes, true, that could happen. Thats a good thought.

An abstain is a non-vote. But that voting member is still present for
purposes of quorum. If people leaving the meeting results in lack of
quorum, then the meeting should be adjourned.

> 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.

Since abstain is a non-vote, it has the effect of being a vote cast
for the prevailing side.

Rules of order are there to protect the minority. In a +1,8,0 case,
there's no minority to protect. Right? A single person can just say
"hey I think we should have a minimum number of votes for this issue"
and then discuss that first. Rules questions are higher ranking than
ordinary issues, so any time someone raises questions about procedure,
you pretty much have to take them up because the idea is that everyone
wants to follow the rules.

Also, +1 votes can be interpreted as either "in favor of" or
"consent". Any idea that +1's translate into "I agree 100%" is
misplaced. It's legitimate to +1 something when you have uncertainty,
but trust in the due diligence of the people and work.

And as for feature owners who are FESCo members, there's no inherent
conflict of interest. However, if that member just doesn't like the
look of voting on their own proposal, it's reasonable to abstain from
the start. This avoids the possibly awkward scenario of voting last,
and breaking a tie vote.

> I think finally it boils down to the question, if it should be a bar
> that should be reached / "at least x people are in favor" or if it
> should be a majority vote / "more people in favor than against"

Correct. And that question, once raised, is a higher order question
than the feature proposal because it is a rules question. It's not
necessary to make it a permanent rule, or alter the existing process.
And it's up to the deliberative body to decide.

And as sgallagh stated at the outset, this hasn't happened before.
It's a rare case. And it was handled properly.


-- 
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
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]