Fedora Project and Fedora Board

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, destroying the confidentiality of the voting process (which is
> what you're doing by forcing people to come out and say how they
> voted) destroys the integrity of said process, in any context (be it
> an election for the Fedora Board or the President of the United
> States)

Forced? That is a bit strong. Bob is asking for strong personal
endorsements by 10 individuals as a mandate for running.  Personal
endorsements ahead of an election are a generally accepted part of
politics even in US. So are election day voter polling.  Making a
strong personal endorsement ahead of an election does not change the
fact that actual election is anonymous.  As long as the granular range
data is not made public any of those 10 people who endorse him ahead
of the election could change their vote and Bob would not be the
wiser.  What he is doing is ballsy and it certainly makes a statement
but it in no way undermines the anonymous nature of the vote itself.
He's making a strong statement as to what a personal endorsement looks
like in a range voting scenario.

Is it a pretty high bar to ask from 10 individuals in terms of a
personal endorsement? Absolutely.

But considering there's been some grumbling about whether the voting
turnout and general election participation represent a strong enough
mandate for any sitting board member... I think challenging community
members to make a strong personal endorsement of some nature is an
interesting approach to get ahead of that particular criticism.

Is this the right approach towards personal endorsement? I have no
idea. It's ballsy. I like Bob, I even think being on the Board might
help him be a better community leader, knock off some of the rough
edges, in the same way a rock tumbler shines up the dirty pieces of
quartz from my drive way when I was a kid. Am I ready to tell Bob I'm
going to forgo voting for anyone else as an endorsement?  I'm not
sure.

What I am sure of is if I do, do that, and I _voluntarily_ give up the
ability to range vote for anyone else, I'm definitely going to hold
Bob accountable as _my_ representative in a way that range voting
equally for 3 people would not. And maybe that's Bob's point. Maybe he
wants to be accountable to some constituency...some group...who will
chew his ear off if he's taking wrong action.

The range voting mechanism may help hedge against polarization into
camps but maybe it also disassociates the chosen centrists from the
rank and file. Maybe personal endorsements help re-attach and
re-engage a little bit more strongly. Maybe Bob's way of approaching
endorsement isn't the optimal way, but it sure is interesting. It's
definitely made me stop and think.

-jef