Fedora Board election results

On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 21:49 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> 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?

What makes me think that is the statement he made, where he didn't vote
for any RH people, simply because they were RH people. No other critera
given, especially not specifics as to why he would avoid the individuals
who happened to be Red Hat employees. I can only go by what he said,
and if I'm drawing the wrong conclusion, so be it, and I'll be happy.

--
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, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:34 AM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

No i dont expect each individual to have a length chat. But I expect
some effort of a group of people to put important issues on the map.
Should I as a Board member tell this community how to select issues to
bring forward for discussion? I have a suggestions, but I need people
in the community to value he need for direct community involvement.
As a prelude to this very moment, I asked if our current voting system
could handle some sort of ranked q/a concept, that let community
members ask questions.. and then let other community members rank
those questions up and down... with the end result being a top 10 set
of questions that the community as a whole felt strongly about asking
of each and every candidate.

The response...can't do it yet. But I was pointed to this:
http://code.google.com/p/pcloadletter/ as an existing example on how
to generate a list of community ranked questions.

And then I was pointed to http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/VotePlugin as
something we co plugin into our existing trac instance to mimic what
the pcloadletter people do to rank questions.

If you were given a facility through which you could rank questions
and issues submitted by other community members would you use it?
Would you submit questions into the que to be ranked? Would you, rank
other submissions? Would you use this to generate a list of issues
and questions to ask candidates to respond to during the next
election? Would you use it to generate questions to ask the current
Board to respond to during its public meetings?

-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 15:21:36 -0400 (EDT), Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:

> 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.

Then don't rip the citation out of its context.

Rest assured, there's nothing wrong with voting like that.

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

2008/6/24 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> The results of the Fedora Project Board elections are in: Tom Callaway,
> Jesse Keating and Seth Vidal have been elected to full two-release
> terms, and Jef Spaleta is re-elected to a one-release term.
>
> Red Hat will announce its final appointment to the Board within the next
> couple of days, completing this cycle.
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
> gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
>
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
>
>

Congratulation with the winner and all the other candidates!

Regards

Francesco Ugolini

_______________________________________________
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 09:09 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

> Trying to bias it on ones employment just becomes too difficult,
> especially given the case that one could be a Red Hat employee in a
> completely different part of the organization, yet still spend one's
> free time on Fedora.

This describes me until last year. Last year was the first time that I
had Fedora as part of my official job duties, which is about four years
after I started contributing my personal time to the project. Even
then, my average week-over-week was about 12% spent on official Fedora
duties. All the rest I wrote off against my personal time.

In fact, I often use myself as a case study when extolling the virtues
of working in Fedora outside of one's job duties. People inside and
outside of the company have moved to Fedora being all or part of their
job duties. In fact, we promote that idea in EPEL:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/PackageMaintainer/GenericJobDescription

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 13:41 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> I can agree with this also. Where I was raised, a person who nominated
> themselves was the worst person to run something.

I want to pull this out for discussion.

It seems like there is a spectrum here, rather than one or two set ways
of being.

For example, you and John have concerns about self-nomination being
abhorrent to people. In cultures where that is more normal, how many
people just go ask someone to nominate them? Is that taboo as well?

On one end are people who just won't put themselves forward as leaders,
despite their obvious qualities.

On the other end are people who will always put themselves forward as
leaders, regardless of their qualities.

In Fedora, we have a huge mix of cultures, and yes, you are going to
find that some specific cultures typically do not put themselves
forward, out of modesty, etc. Then the people from that culture who do
are either as you say (least trustworthy) or they people who have
adapted the most to another culture that dominates the election
methodology.

But yet, in places known for their modesty, be they South Carolina or
Japan, there are people who run for office, are elected, and do either a
good, bad, or so-so job. How do we account for all of that?

FWIW, I'm deeply concerned that our Fedora way of doing democracy is
very different than what other countries need. I've no idea if we can
do one overarching governance system that appeals to all cultural
backgrounds. Hopefully, the process can be localized in terms of
culturen where people interact more closely, such as the subProject/SIG
level.

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
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.

Sounds exactly like the definition of prejudice. He has prejudged the
worthiness of a candidate based on employer. Doesn't matter how much
personal experience he has.

> 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.

Perhaps you are right. I react when I detect unwarranted prejudice
against Red Hat -- over the years, there have been HUGE negative
reaction to Red Hat in many, many, many community circles. In my
experience, greater negative reaction than any other single entity
outside of RMS.

However, my overwhelming experience is different. Experience as someone
who came from outside-with-an-attitude-against-Red Hat (ask any ex-VA
Linux person what we thought about Red Hat.) Experience talking with
hundreds who made that transition from competitor/customer/community to
employee over the last six+ years I've been @redhat.com. None say,
"Boy, this place really is a blood sucking leach on the community." All
say, "Wow, the prejudice against Red Hat is often unwarranted."

As long as this knee-jerk prejudice is shown in debates, there will be
knee-jerk responses. That cycle will devolve the discussion along
predictable lines.

- Karsten, jerk!
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:47:07 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> Sounds exactly like the definition of prejudice. He has prejudged the
> worthiness of a candidate based on employer.

Wrong.

Wrong, because you don't take into account that there were only three
well-known RH employees to choose from. They are no newcomers. One can
judge about them based on their previous activity.

Added on top of the judgement, there is the personal preference to give
non-RH reps a voice, since RH occupies several non-elected seats in the
board already. Don't twist the words. The quote is at the top. The goal
is to strengthen the community, not to fight Red Hat employees. It can
be called fairness. Or tactical voting, as one could fill only four
seats and could not give all eight a chance. One simply had to prefer
four out of eight.

> Doesn't matter how much personal experience he has.

Sure it does, especially if it's personal experience in knowing particular
persons already. [here I don't know whether *you* have been in contact
with Ralf before or whether you only jump on the band-wagon]

> As long as this knee-jerk prejudice is shown in debates, there will be
> knee-jerk responses.

Ask Shadowman and jump over your shadow, man.

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

On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 01:33 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Added on top of the judgement, there is the personal preference to give
> non-RH reps a voice, since RH occupies several non-elected seats in the
> board already. Don't twist the words. The quote is at the top. The goal
> is to strengthen the community, not to fight Red Hat employees.

At what point is it not possible for Red Hat employees to be part of the
community you wish to strengthen?

--
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, 2008-06-25 at 15:21 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> 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.
Correct!

But may-be I haven't been clear enough: These criteria had been more a
ranking system (soft criteria) but "strict" criteria.

That said, I am actually distinguishing folks, who have been put onto
RH's payrole after election to allow them working on Fedora from folks
who work on Fedora on "behalf of RH" and @RH-folks whom I have learned
to be "open-minded" from those I learned to be "RH
stateholders"/"RH-brain-washed" (Pardon, should this working hurt
anyone).

Otherwise I would not have been able to vote at all and would have had
to abstains. As I already previously wrote, I resorted to voting for
those I considered to be the "least evil" - This included voting for
@RH's.

> Which begs three questions:
>
> 1. Is there a potential candidate in the whole world of Fedora
> contributors who would have met these criteria?
Yes, several.

> 2. If so, did you encourage them to run?
No.

> 3. If not, why not?
Primarily 2 reasons:

1) Because FPB's role/job/position in Fedora is not clear to me.
RH-inaugurated junta to suppress/control Fedora? 2nd chamber ("House of
Lords") of a parliamentary system? "supervisory board" to supervise the
"management board/board of directors" (== FESCO)? RH's representation in
Fedora?

2) Because I didn't have time to (Yes, sounds like a weak excuse, but
real life sometimes is more trivial than you may want it to be)

Ralf


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