Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)

John Poelstra poelstra at
Wed Sep 15 18:02:57 UTC 2010

Thorsten Leemhuis said the following on 09/15/2010 12:09 AM Pacific Time:
> 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>  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:
>>> ok.
>>>> - 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).

Maybe I'm reading more than you intended into what you said.  I don't 
believe it is part of FESCo's charter or any other Fedora leadership 
group to "make everyone happy." That is an impossible job.

My expectation of the leadership bodies in Fedora is that they oversee 
the current work and future direction of Fedora and do what is best for 
Fedora's success and future--even if there isn't unanimous happiness or 
agreement in the community.


More information about the devel mailing list