Elected/Appointed Board

[John Poelstra]

Josh Boyer said the following on 04/21/2008 07:36 PM Pacific Time:
> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:26 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>>
>>> It is also used as a tie-breaker.  We had a tie a few weeks ago over 
>>> (*holds breath*) Codeina/Codec Buddy, right there live in IRC, and 
>>> Paul had to make the decision.  Not sure how often this happens.  Was 
>>> his decision the will of the community just because it potentially 
>>> aligned with a portion of them?  Jon is arguing, aiui, "No."
>> We only had a tie because the meeting was on IRC, not all Board members 
>> were present, and the Board specifically wanted to make a decision AT 
>> THAT TIME and not put it off until the missing member was present.
>>
>> With 9 "voting members", there will never be a tie if everyone is there.
> 
> "Abstain" votes are not allowed?
> 

That is something I've been thinking about recently.

I think we should remove the option for an elected member of FESCo or 
the Board to 'abstain' or vote '+0' unless there is a legitimate 
conflict of interest or reason with merit such as complete unfamiliarity 
with an area.  It seems to me that voting '+0' is really voting '-1' 
without conviction and that dilutes the process... something along the 
lines of 'if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice'.

I think voting in FESCo and the Board should be straight 'for||opposed' 
votes.  We are electing these people to represent us and at times, work 
through hard, uninteresting issues that affect the present and future of 
Fedora.

John