On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 20:29 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> Josh Boyer said the following on 04/21/2008 07:36 PM Pacific Time:
> > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:26 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> >>> It is also used as a tie-breaker. We had a tie a few weeks ago over
> >>> (*holds breath*) Codeina/Codec Buddy, right there live in IRC, and
> >>> Paul had to make the decision. Not sure how often this happens. Was
> >>> his decision the will of the community just because it potentially
> >>> aligned with a portion of them? Jon is arguing, aiui, "No."
> >> We only had a tie because the meeting was on IRC, not all Board members
> >> were present, and the Board specifically wanted to make a decision AT
> >> THAT TIME and not put it off until the missing member was present.
> >> With 9 "voting members", there will never be a tie if everyone is there.
> > "Abstain" votes are not allowed?
> That is something I've been thinking about recently.
> I think we should remove the option for an elected member of FESCo or
> the Board to 'abstain' or vote '+0' unless there is a legitimate
> conflict of interest or reason with merit such as complete unfamiliarity
> with an area. It seems to me that voting '+0' is really voting '-1'
Those would be the only two reasons I ever vote '0'. It happens more
often than you'd think.
fedora-advisory-board mailing list