Fedora Board election results

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 00:37 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> > So, everything but seeing a ca. 2/3-3/4 RH-dominated board would be a 
> > surprise. The next board will have a 90-100% RH-dominated board, well, 
> > the overall situation hasn't changed at all. This board is designed to 
> > be a RH internal business.
> 
> You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it so.  If you want to 
> assert that the *effect* is that it feels as though RH is making too many 
> decisions, that's fine, and that's a worthwhile discussion.  But for you 
> to assert that the *intent* of the board is to be "RH internal business" 
> is a slap in the face to all of the people who have stuggled against *very 
> long odds* to create a public governance model for Fedora.
Well, is this of importance to non-RH Fedora contributors?

There might have been progress to resistance against Fedora internal to
RH, but ... why should non-RH's care? I for one don't know and feel I
don't have to know nor to care. 

Any entity being involved into a larger project must have some
"instance" to draw _internal_ decisions, any such entity must have some
"mechanisms" to communicate/coordinate _their_ resources/contributions
to others ... everybody has to do so - May-be I am miss-understanding,
but that's exactly how I interpret the board's role in Fedora, it's part
of RH's internal management.

> >> Now for finding candidates.. you can always run yourself or find
> >> someone you want to run and get them nominated (eg get them to want to
> >> run).
> >
> > One can't do everything oneself. That's one of fundamental working
> > principles of democracy. I simply could not find "the candidate" I would
> > like to vote for and therefore resorted to "voting for the least evil".
> >
> > If I wasn't a deeply convinced democrat, who takes participating in
> > votes for governments for granted, I probably would have abstained the
> > vote.
> 
> This is a perfect example of why governments frequently suck -- because 
> people leave the hard work of governance to others.
Hmm ?!? Today's democracies are "representative democracies". They are
supposed to be based on electing delegates, representing "the people"
and the "people"'s will.

>   Here's the facts: 
> democratic governments, all over the world, are usually run by the people 
> who bother to show up.
Yes, ... and if they don't represent the people, in longer terms they
are going not to be re-elected or be kicked out of office, or the people
will leave their government alone.

> I can see a lot of good points in the discussion.  But if it all boils 
> down to "I don't have time to participate in Fedora governance," then just 
> say that.  Because that's really what you are saying.
Partially correct. 

Better would be: I don't have time nor interest in actively
participating in this governance system. I do have the time and interest
to vote on MY delegate, such that I feel my opinion is represented in
this "governance system".

Ralf