On Thursday, May 14, 2020, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:57 AM Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
>
>> Abstaining means "I don't care", not "I feel uncomfortable with this
>> change".
>>
>
> I'm going to disagree with you here, specifically with regards to the "I
> don't care" piece.
On 5/17/20 9:36 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Well, I also see a strong correlation between changes being driven,
requested and/or needed by RHEL and them being accepted by FESCo, even over
predominantly negative community feedback.
I am aware that correlation does not imply causation, but it does
Neal Gompa wrote:
> I don't think this necessarily is as strong conflict of interest as
> you'd expect. Most folks are involved in multiple teams (WGs, SIGs,
> etc.) and those "conflicts" naturally exist. I think the only *real*
> conflict would be a change owner voting *for* their change. For
>
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 9:02 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > One thing that I think this conversation thread *has* achieved is
> > identifying that most Fedorans don't consider a FESCo member voting in
> > favor of their own Change Proposal to be a conflict of interest. I
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> One thing that I think this conversation thread *has* achieved is
> identifying that most Fedorans don't consider a FESCo member voting in
> favor of their own Change Proposal to be a conflict of interest. I
> think we should probably recognize this and take that out of
Jared K. Smith wrote:
> I'm going to disagree with you here, specifically with regards to the "I
> don't care" piece. From my time in FESCo, and as the FPL before that -- I
> can never remember a time when someone abstained because they didn't care.
> I remember people abstaining because they
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:47 AM Jared K. Smith
wrote:
>
> I'm going to disagree with you here, specifically with regards to the "I
> don't care" piece. From my time in FESCo, and as the FPL before that -- I
> can never remember a time when someone abstained because they didn't care. I
>
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:57 AM Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> Abstaining means "I don't care", not "I feel uncomfortable with this
> change".
>
I'm going to disagree with you here, specifically with regards to the "I
don't care" piece. From my time in FESCo, and as the FPL before that -- I
can never
John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> To change abstaining to be the same as removing oneself from the pool of
> eligible voters would have the same effect as providing rubber stamps to
> changes. If folks are uncertain about a given change, it's certainly very
> valid to abstain, and if many people are
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:29:19 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:46 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> > But then everybody felt strong that it is not possible, because if there
> > was not official body approving this, that could be end of the world. So
> > now, when we have
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:46 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> But then everybody felt strong that it is not possible, because if there
> was not official body approving this, that could be end of the world. So
> now, when we have that body, it gives blank approvals, because the
> members of the body
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:18 AM David Kaufmann 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.
Hi, Neal,
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:24 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 8:04 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > I have several reasons against ELN, which I have already stated for past
> > > versions of your proposal
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 8:04 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > I have several reasons against ELN, which I have already stated for past
> > versions of your proposal (Should I really have repeated those at every
> > single revised version
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:01:29 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * Having a buildroot called "EL Next" means that Fedora gets in the
> > business
>
> > of composing the development version of RHEL in addition to the
> > development version of Fedora. I do not see how this is the job of
> >
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:01:29AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * Having a buildroot called "EL Next" means that Fedora gets in the business
> > of composing the development version of RHEL in addition to the
> > development version of Fedora. I do not see how this is the job of Fedora
Dne 13. 05. 20 v 15:08 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> On 13. 05. 20 14:45, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> But then everybody felt strong that it is not possible, because if there
>> was not official body approving this, that could be end of the world. So
>> now, when we have that body, it gives blank
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 10:34, Igor Raits
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
> > wrote:
> > > David Kaufmann wrote:
> > > > If abstentions would lower the
-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
> wrote:
> > David Kaufmann wrote:
> > > If abstentions would lower the necessary +1 votes, this would
> > > automatically give the author
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 09:17, Kevin Kofler 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
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:46 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 12. 05. 20 v 14:22 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>
> >> Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM
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
On 13. 05. 20 14:45, Vít Ondruch wrote:
When the change process was established, I always proposed that the
change should be always pre-approved by default. The changes would be
judged by the amount of feedback received on ML after their
announcement. If somebody had strong concerns, it would be
Dne 12. 05. 20 v 14:22 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher
>>> wrote:
During today's FESCo meeting, we
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I have several reasons against ELN, which I have already stated for past
> versions of your proposal (Should I really have repeated those at every
> single revised version that you came up with to bypass the repeated
> rejection?):
> * Having
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.
> The whole definition of an abstention or
Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> The proposal has at least support of its owners, who stepped in and
> spent some time describing the idea.
>
> If there are no convincing reasons against this proposal, then it is
> their opinion, which matters. They have an idea, and they are willing
> to do the job
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> For me, it was that. I wasn't able to grasp the change proposal quickly,
> would need to dedicate more time to it and I prioritized other things,
> abstaining as in: "I trust other members understand this issue better than
> me and they will decide the good way."
>
>
David Kaufmann wrote:
> Especially in the case of recusal it should be a higher bar, to keep the
> assessment on the same level.
[…]
> Removing people not attending the vote from the quorum can be discussed,
> but if a lot of people either don't care about the question or
> explicitely don't vote
Hi,
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> >> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an unusual voting
> >> situation for the first
On 12. 05. 20 10:27, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Actually, it should be also useful if position of each abstaining FESCo
member was explained. Because for myself, I can interpret 5 people
abstaining just as a lack of understanding of the issue and nothing else.
For me, it was that. I wasn't able to
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 12. 05. 20 v 10:18 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher
> >> wrote:
> >>> During today's FESCo meeting, we
Dne 12. 05. 20 v 10:18 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>>> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an unusual voting
>>> situation for the first time: Four FESCo members
Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher 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
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:21 PM Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 7:40 PM Chris Murphy
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Bias is not the same thing as a conflict of interest. And it doesn't
> > > inherently result in
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:21 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 7:40 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> > Bias is not the same thing as a conflict of interest. And it doesn't
> > inherently result in unfairness.
>
> Sometimes it is a matter avoiding even the appearance
> of
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 7:40 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> Bias is not the same thing as a conflict of interest. And it doesn't
> inherently result in unfairness.
Sometimes it is a matter avoiding even the appearance
of impropriety that could be raised at a later date to
question the
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:49 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> Oh, it's not about knowledge at all in this case, but about bias and
> objectivity. Obviously, people who design some change can never be
> fully neutral. Additionally, if we assume that FESCo members vote for
> their
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:25:35PM +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 8:06 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 11. 05. 20 19:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > One strong argument for the proposed change is that, currently, an
> > > abstention or recusal
Hi,
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 8:06 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 11. 05. 20 19:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > One strong argument for the proposed change is that, currently, an
> > abstention or recusal (TIL that's the proper term) is essentially
> > equivalent to a negative vote. (As
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:36:06PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> One strong argument for the proposed change is that, currently, an
> abstention or recusal (TIL that's the proper term) is essentially
> equivalent to a negative vote. (As long as we require +5 to pass,
> any vote apart
On 11. 05. 20 19:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
One strong argument for the proposed change is that, currently, an
abstention or recusal (TIL that's the proper term) is essentially
equivalent to a negative vote. (As long as we require +5 to pass,
any vote apart from +1 has the same
Hi,
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher 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
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:13:52PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 05. 20 18:23, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>* 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
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:01:09PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Alex Scheel wrote:
> > Abstaining is in two categories:
>
> There is (at least) one additional category, which
> is that the issue involves various levels of self
> interest. Technically that
On 11. 05. 20 18:23, Ben Cotton wrote:
* 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.
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:16 PM Alex Scheel wrote:
> Abstaining is in two categories:
There is (at least) one additional category, which
is that the issue involves various levels of self
interest. Technically that is really called a recusal,
but the result is the same when it comes time
to
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:23 pm, Ben Cotton wrote:
So in theory a proposal could pass with a vote of (+1,8,-0). This
seems ungreat. If many FESCo members are unwilling to provide an
up/down, that indicates a problem with the proposal, IMO. I'd like to
see this have a floor (e.g. proposals
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:53 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
Replying out of order because I can :-)
> * A FESCo member may grant their proxy vote to another member of the
> Fedora community if they cannot be in attendance for a vote. If they
> do so, that vote is counted equivalently to any
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:52:24 AM
> Subject: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy
>
> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an
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,
51 matches
Mail list logo
