Fedora Board election results

[inode0]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:17 AM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I find the whole self-nomination process distasteful. While I
>> understand this is normal in some cultures it is very alien to other
>> cultures. It seems obvious to me that there are competent and willing
>> members who will not self-nominate and I don't understand why Fedora
>> insists they be excluded from the process. I would prefer there be a
>> way for community members to nominate quality people they know and
>> those nominated in this way could accept or decline such a nomination.
>> Others could nominate themselves if they wish to.
>
> Did you have someone specific in mind that didn't self-nominate?  Did
> you ask them to run?

I didn't need to as he nominated himself. Whether I did or didn't
doesn't affect the point I am making that there are high quality
people who will *not* self-nominate. There are people who simply find
doing so repugnant.

> There is absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else asking or
> daring someone, in public or in private, to run.  I honestly do not
> see the point of formal process of nominating other people, with a
> formal process of accepting or declining that sort of nomination.  All
> that does is slow the process down even further.  If you had someone
> in mind that you wanted to see run next time... just make a big fuss
> about that person. Tell all of us who it is and why you want them to
> run via the planet or this list. There is no reason to formalize it.
> That person will either add their name and info to the candidate list
> or will tell you to stop embarrassing them.    There is absolutely
> nothing stopping anyone from encouraging someone else to step forward
> for elections, but we aren't going to demand that candidates be found
> that way.
>
> Next time, if you want certain people to run, then get out in front
> and make a public suggestion. If nominating someone else leads to
> stronger candidates, and stronger support for those candidates...
> prove it by making it happen. Next time publicly suggest someone and
> convince them to run for the election. And once they are in the
> candidate pool, publicly endorse them.  There is absolutely nothing
> stopping you or anyone else from throwing a name in the ring for
> consideration. If they accept, then its no different than the a
> self-nominating process we have now.  All that person has to do is add
> their name and bio to the list. There's absolutely no reason that such
> biographical information could not include an endorsement section.
>
> I would like to point out that the candidates which did get public
> endorsements from other community members on the planet were the ones
> who were not elected.

And the point of this is what exactly?

One of the benefits of a more open nomination process is that it is
rewarding to be nominated by someone else for a position of
leadership. It tells you that your work is appreciated and that
someone thinks enough of you and your abilities to recommend you for a
role you may never have considered. Whether you run or not, whether
you win or lose in the end isn't the only result that counts. The
public acknowledgment of your contribution also counts.

>> Range voting is another aspect of the process I find discouraging in
>> general. Suppose I know 3 of 10 candidates personally (at least I've
>> had direct interactions with a small subset of the candidates). The
>> other 7 candidates I perhaps know some by reputation and don't know
>> some at all. By what rational process am I supposed to assign votes to
>> the entire slate of candidates?
>
> Humans are irrational, and thus any voting scheme is going to have
> personal bias. If you want to just vote for 3 people, and then vote 0
> for all the rest... that's your decision and would be equivalent to
> more common forms of ballet voting when multiple seats are open in a
> body.  The votes still count.

Sure I can vote that way but it is *not* equivalent to more common
forms unless everyone votes that same way. Whether I give someone I
know little or nothing about 0 votes while someone else irrationally
gives them 5 votes makes a difference in the result. I'm penalizing
candidates more than others are and there is no rational basis for
doing so.

>> Honestly I feel like what my vote ends
>> up being is fairly random data and is  as likely to distort the
>> process to the detriment of some candidate I don't know and don't want
>> to penalize as it is to elect the candidates I might prefer.
>
> Every time you vote in a way that indicates a preference, you penalize
> a candidate. More traditional voting schemes are all about penalizing
> as many candidates as possible.  Range voting gives you the ability to
> penalize with far greater precision, or with no precision at all.
> If you choose to vote for everyone equally, then you are making a
> statement that you prefer all candidates equal while still voting.
> That says something different than not voting at all.

There is no point in penalizing with far greater precision when you
mostly don't know the people you are penalizing.

Range voting may well be a wonderful intellectual exercise but if is
too onerous for enough people to feel they are casting fair and
reasoned votes then it isn't one that will be successful in the end.

>> So my choice to not vote was not made out of contentment with current
>> leadership, not made out of apathy, not made out of being happy with
>> the entire slate of candidates, but rather it was not made out of
>> frustration with the voting process.
>
> I do not understand the frustration. Range voting gives individual
> voters more flexibility than traditional one vote - one seat voting.
> Would you really prefer that you and everyone else got place one vote
> for each open seat?  You had the ability to vote that way if you
> wanted to inside the range voting setup. Would you force the same
> preference on how to rank candidates on everyone else?

Had the election been one vote per open seat I would have voted as
there were enough candidates that I know and have confidence in to
have cast positive votes for them.

No, I would not force anyone else to do anything. If the fedora
community prefers range voting the fedora community can continue using
it. I was asked why I didn't vote and I'm just trying to let the board
know why.

John