On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 4:30 PM Andreas Heigl <andr...@heigl.org> wrote:
> Adding an Abstain in combination with one of these changes > > * Introducing a certain amount of minimum votes (including abstains) > * Connecting voting karma to actual particiation in votes > > sounds very reasonable and worthwile in my opinion. > > Adding an abstain just so one can see that one abstained on the other > hand seems to me rather pointless. > There are two immediate benefits for me: 1) I get a couple of messages per week asking about a certain RFC, if I've seen it, etc. For RFCs where I don't want to vote, it would be nice to communicate that. I don't vote on RFCs where I haven't read the implementation and tested things, so for some topics I choose not to spend the time. Getting asked about it by multiple people gets draining. Totally a "me" problem, sure, but something that would be solved by allowing me to communicate that I've seen the thing, publicly. 2) Looking back, when going over the RFC list, it would be nice to see which things I've read and engaged with. Not just what I voted on. And I don't think it makes sense to tie future-looking policy changes into this; that would require a way bigger scoped discussion. Cheers, Volker -- Volker Dusch Head of Engineering Tideways GmbH Königswinterer Str. 116 53227 Bonn https://tideways.io/imprint Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn Geschäftsführer: Benjamin Außenhofer (geb. Eberlei) Registergericht: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 22127
