Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
fedora at leemhuis.info
Wed Sep 15 07:09:35 UTC 2010
Toshio Kuratomi wrote on 15.09.2010 04:54:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:02:33PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:48:13 -0400
>> Máirín Duffy <duffy at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> > 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?
Just a side note: That has problems of its own, as those votes might
happen before new aspects come up in the IRC discussion that normally
precedes the votes in IRC meetings...
>> > - 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).
> Note, in the distant past, FESCo's rule was majority of the folks present
> with an attempt made at unanimity by the present members by resolving (as
> much as possible) their differences in opinion. This was actually stated in
> meetings but I don't think that it made it to the wiki -- thl might know as
> that was during his tenure as chair.
> However, I don't believe this rule has been followed in a *long* time so
> it might just be a historical footnote to this conversation.
Yes, back then we afaics tried a whole lot harder to make everyone
happy. That included even non-FESCo members that tried to raise options
on a particular topic on the list or in IRC meeting; we even let those
non-FESCo-members share a (mostly "unofficial") vote on IRC, as those
votes often influenced how FESCo member voted (which IMHO was a good thing).
Some of that obviously would be much harder to do these days, as FESCo
has lot more to deal with and Fedora has way more contributors. But that
doesn't mean part of it could be tried again.
More information about the devel