Fedora Board election results

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond@gmail.com> wrote:
> To the contrary. Perhaps the voters have decided that Red Hat has
> been doing an awesome job. I don't get where the big deal is.


Or perhaps people don't see these people as red hat at all.

Perhaps for example, the people who voted for Seth did so because he
best represents their dirty hippy ideals of home gardening, mass
transportation, and free love. I personally firmly believe that if
Red Hat as a corporate entity implodes, Seth will have engineered the
carnage with the hopes of bulldozing each corporate office and
replacing it with a community vegetable garden.


-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:20:41 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 17:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> > In this vote, my criteria has been (in decreasing importance):
> > * Not being @RH, because I wanted to see the community strengthened in
> > this already @RH-predominated FPB and therefore don't see much reason
> > into adding more @RHs.
>
> Do you feel that every Red Hat employee is the same person, and that we
> all have the same opinions and ideals? Is our getting a paycheck from
> Red Hat somehow make us less interested in seeing Fedora be the greater
> good for the greater community? Is there no way to get past this
> prejudice ?

At this point I could only shake my head in disbelief.
"Prejudice"??? No, certainly not. People like Ralf are long enough
part of the community to vote based on personal experience.

I'm close to being convinced that it is not language barriers that cause
misunderstandings in discussions like this. What is it then? It's a
completely different line of thinking coupled with frayed nerves.

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:34:46 -0400 (EDT), Max Spevack wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > This list is really funny.
>
> Have we reached the time in the show yet where we all write down names
> on a piece of paper and then vote someone off the Board?
>
> Too bad I gave up my immunity necklace to pfrields.

Learn how to cast spells which have the same effect.

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

Jesse Keating wrote:

There is a by-weekly call between various Red Hat (RHEL)
engineering/product managers and various Fedora resources within Red
Hat. This call is to keep everybody up to speed on what's going on and
the thoughts of the two groups. No actual decisions are made there,
information is gathered for other decision making meetings.


Which helps, but getting explanations and being in the trenches are two
different things.


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:29 AM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
> We can't hold your feet to the fire if you won't tell us what you do.

Actually you can and as a community you must!

If there are issues that you feel are not being addressed by any
existing group... you bring them to the board.. and we figure out how
to address the issue. We might task you with creating a policy draft,
we might take the issue to an existing group and bully them into
dealing with it.. or we might stand up a whole new community group to
find consensus and do the necessary work. But we do all of that at
the urging of community members. If people are not bringing issues
forward.. then we have to assume things are working smoothly and there
is absolutely no reason for us to meddle.

The mandate of the Board is very general....we are the fixers. If
shit breaks down we make an effort to fix it. But if people aren't
telling us its broken, we don't do squat as the Board. We as
individual maybe doing a lot as project leaders to do new things, but
as the Board we are here to be responsive. We endeavor to stand up
all the day-to-day project work as subgroups of community members who
take ownership of that space. We support active community members in
deed and thought and word, and resolve conflicts when there is a need.
We act as a firebreak on legal shitstorms so that the project doesn't
dissolve under the weight of legal liability. Every bit of that is
important, and every bit of that are things which we can't easily take
personal credit for as sitting Board members.... because its not about
the personal credit.

This sort of work is vitally important to the health of a large
project. The ability to be responsive to problems and get them solved.
It has nothing to do with whatever sort of big ideas you come in with
as a candidate on new things to do. It doesn't matter what you helped
resolve last year either. What matters is growing an understanding of
what the current frustrations are in the community, getting people to
talk through them, and then empowering someone to deal with it.

If community members are not bringing issues forward, then the
community is not doing its part. The Board is a construct meant to be
responsive to project needs. if those needs are not brought forward,
then basically the best candidate ends up being people with certified
mind-reading abilities. Sitting on your hands, expecting candidates
to know what you are looking for is quite frankly pathetic. Challenge
them, challenge the sitting board, by putting issues forward and
explaining your frustrations in a timely manner. Ask the candidates
pointedly what they think about those issues. Don't evaluate what
issues candidates think are important...evaluate what a candidate
thinks about the issues which are important to you as the community.
Bring those issues to the table, and demand the Board and the Board
candidates talk about them.

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@gmx.net> wrote:
> I'm close to being convinced that it is not language barriers that cause
> misunderstandings in discussions like this. What is it then? It's a
> completely different line of thinking coupled with frayed nerves.

I have to agree. A find deeply disturbing similarities in how some
list conversations go, with how some 'discussions' with my wife go.
Completely different line of thinking and frayed nerves is exactly the
root cause of unlooked for hostility in my real life analogy. Except,
I don't have the aid of body language to read to help diagnose when to
make an adjustment in what I'm saying in a list conversation before
things go to far and the conversation is no longer constructive. And
we have the added complication of having more than 2 people in a
conversation, multiplying the possible ways things can be
misinterpreted.

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 20:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:20:41 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 17:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >
> > > In this vote, my criteria has been (in decreasing importance):
> > > * Not being @RH, because I wanted to see the community strengthened in
> > > this already @RH-predominated FPB and therefore don't see much reason
> > > into adding more @RHs.
> >
> > Do you feel that every Red Hat employee is the same person, and that we
> > all have the same opinions and ideals? Is our getting a paycheck from
> > Red Hat somehow make us less interested in seeing Fedora be the greater
> > good for the greater community? Is there no way to get past this
> > prejudice ?
>
> At this point I could only shake my head in disbelief.
> "Prejudice"??? No, certainly not. People like Ralf are long enough
> part of the community to vote based on personal experience.
>
> I'm close to being convinced that it is not language barriers that cause
> misunderstandings in discussions like this. What is it then? It's a
> completely different line of thinking coupled with frayed nerves.

So if it isn't a language thing...

All that I can see here is a reluctance to vote for any person who may
happen to work for Red Hat, regardless of group or duty. The conclusion
I jump to is that by not wanting to vote for these people, they are
somehow less qualified for the job, or less likely to do a good job than
somebody else. It seems that the reasons given aren't specific to the
individual, just the generic label of being a Red Hat employee. That's
what I take offense to, or at least sadness to.

I honestly hoped that people would be voting due to individual concerns
rather than paycheck signers. Did I get voted in because I work for Red
Hat? I certainly hope not, but at the same time I would certainly hope
that somebody else /wouldn't/ get voted in next time just because
they /do/ work for Red Hat.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:


I'm curious Ralf, can you name 3 things that a candidate might have that
match your criteria?


In this vote, my criteria has been (in decreasing importance):

* Not being @RH, because I wanted to see the community strengthened in
this already @RH-predominated FPB and therefore don't see much reason
into adding more @RHs.


Funny, this was my primary criteria as well -- yet when I cite this, this
criteria is dismissed as "playing a game". That's a bit frustrating to
me.



* Exclude people of whom I had learned not to be trustworthy.
* People having a measurable record as Fedora contributor.
* The candidates' interests overlapping with my personal interests.


So from these criteria, you could find no candidates that were worth your
vote. Which begs three questions:


1. Is there a potential candidate in the whole world of Fedora
contributors who would have met these criteria?


2. If so, did you encourage them to run?

3. If not, why not?

--g

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:29 AM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We can't hold your feet to the fire if you won't tell us what you do.
>
> Actually you can and as a community you must!
>
> If there are issues that you feel are not being addressed by any
> existing group... you bring them to the board.. and we figure out how
> to address the issue. We might task you with creating a policy draft,
> we might take the issue to an existing group and bully them into
> dealing with it.. or we might stand up a whole new community group to
> find consensus and do the necessary work. But we do all of that at
> the urging of community members. If people are not bringing issues
> forward.. then we have to assume things are working smoothly and there
> is absolutely no reason for us to meddle.

We keep going from the specific to the general. I have been discussing
one specific issue, fedora board elections. I have asked specific
questions about how the Fedora community is expected to arrive at a
vote within the current system. I am not getting any suggestions that
I don't perceive to be the equivalent of tossing darts at the
phonebook.

> ... snip ...
> If community members are not bringing issues forward, then the
> community is not doing its part. The Board is a construct meant to be
> responsive to project needs. if those needs are not brought forward,
> then basically the best candidate ends up being people with certified
> mind-reading abilities. Sitting on your hands, expecting candidates
> to know what you are looking for is quite frankly pathetic. Challenge
> them, challenge the sitting board, by putting issues forward and
> explaining your frustrations in a timely manner. Ask the candidates
> pointedly what they think about those issues. Don't evaluate what
> issues candidates think are important...evaluate what a candidate
> thinks about the issues which are important to you as the community.
> Bring those issues to the table, and demand the Board and the Board
> candidates talk about them.

So you expect each voter to have a lengthy chat with 5, 10, 20
candidates in a 10 day voting period. How do you see that working? I
am hearing a nice explanation of the general parameters governing what
the board does and how the Fedora community can interact with the
board. That is all great information. I don't see how that is relevant
in the limited context of board elections.

John

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:14:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

> > I'm close to being convinced that it is not language barriers that cause
> > misunderstandings in discussions like this. What is it then? It's a
> > completely different line of thinking coupled with frayed nerves.
>
> So if it isn't a language thing...
>
> All that I can see here is a reluctance to vote for any person who may
> happen to work for Red Hat, regardless of group or duty.

Rather than "reluctance", I would call it "personal preference" paired
with experience. Is it not forbidden to vote for non-RH nominees only.
I find it completely plausible that a community volunteer wants to take
the chance at filling community seats with non-RH community reps and
giving them a voice.

With the disclaimer in front that I am not Ralf's spokes-person, what
makes you think that this time Ralf did not have any specific reason not
to vote for some [or any] of the RH candidates?

> The conclusion
> I jump to is that by not wanting to vote for these people, they are
> somehow less qualified for the job, or less likely to do a good job than
> somebody else. It seems that the reasons given aren't specific to the
> individual, just the generic label of being a Red Hat employee. That's
> what I take offense to, or at least sadness to.

That's too pessimistic. You could still try to persuade such voters
with doing a brilliant work as a FPB member, who shares common interests
with them.

> I honestly hoped that people would be voting due to individual concerns
> rather than paycheck signers. Did I get voted in because I work for Red
> Hat? I certainly hope not, but at the same time I would certainly hope
> that somebody else /wouldn't/ get voted in next time just because
> they /do/ work for Red Hat.

We don't know who voted. We don't know anything about the voter
distribution. How many first-time voters? How many have taken part in past
elections and have drawn conclusions?

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board