Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
kevin at scrye.com
Wed Sep 15 01:02:33 UTC 2010
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:48:13 -0400
Máirín Duffy <duffy at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi FESCo members,
> Only 5 of the 9 FESCo members voted on this issue. If all 9 had voted,
> even with the current 3 for / 2 against vote, systemd could easily
> have enough votes for inclusion in F14. I have a couple of questions
> for you, FESCo, since I honestly don't know and maybe would feel more
> comfortable knowing:
> - Has there been any consideration for formalizing the acceptable of
> absentee votes?
no, but perhaps there should be?
> - How many members must be present at a meeting for a voting decision
> to be considered valid?
My understanding: A quorum (ie, 5 of 9).
> - Is it possible to collect the votes of the folks who were not
yes. And I filed a ticket last week to do so:
I'm pretty bummed that only 3 fesco members bothered to vote there.
> Let me make one thing clear: if FESCo decides that this is the best
> decision in the interest of Fedora, I trust you all completely to make
> the right call. I am just coming away with the feeling that this is a
> little closer to a dice roll - depending on who & how many showed up -
> than I feel is really fair given the magnitude of the issue. This
> decision while pending has come up as a topic time and time again in
> Board meetings & community Q&A so it seems a major issue for a lot of
> folks in Fedora. Therefore, I feel it should be something FESCo is
> quite sure about.
I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard.
Any ideas? I could try making the tickets have some more descriptive
subject like "HEY VOTE ON THIS PLEASE BEFORE NEXT MEETING:" or
> Again, either way the decision goes - fine. It would be nice to hear
> from the FESCo members not present on how they feel about the
> decision, though.
I'd love to too.
> Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting
> process, irregardless of its conclusion?
Sure. I wish it was more clear cut too.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100914/cf4cc294/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the devel