Flock voting issues

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 08:22:20AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I guess also my corresponding assumption was that it was more like 20%
> > community vote.
> Really?  Did you even really think about this before you made such an
> assumption?  Let's break some stuff down here.

Uh... yes. Yes I did. Where is this hostility coming from? You asked
for comments!

> 1) The number of talks submitted, while encouragingly growing year
> over year, is not so plentiful as to allow us to pick and choose talks
> on a whim.

Who said anything about "on a whim"?


> 2) If you compare the set schedule with the voting results, you will
> find an extremely high correlation of high voted talks on the agenda.
> To the point where some of the talks were accepted even with large
> reservations from the planning committee.  Multiple times.

I haven't gone and compared. I see all of the past voting results are
open now, but last year I rememer them being embargoed and I assumed
that was intentional. If I'm misremembering or misunderstood, I'm
sorry.


> 3) Why would we even bother holding a vote if the results were going
> to be essentially meaningless?  What would be the point of the hassle
> and arguing about it?

A lot has been made over how Flock differs from recent FUDCons in that
it has an intentional, pre-planned scedule rather than a bar-camp
schedule -- which is to say, a schedule primarily made based on votes
of the attendees. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to take that
to mean that other factors are considered heavily.

That doesn't mean that it's _meaningless_, though. I would have said
"0%" if I meant meaningless. I said "20%", which, sure, is an arbitrary
number I made up, but by that I mean: given significant weight, but
only one of a number of important factors considered by the committee.



-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader