On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 11:38 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2013 08:34 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Paul Wouters pwouters@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote: > > > > > I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but there are essentially two camps > right now. Those that don't care about release names one bit (like > me), and those that do. If those that do care want better names, > they'll need to work harder at creating meaningful suggestions.
OK I'm third camp: peanut gallery. I don't really care about release names, I'm happier to see them go away, but insofar as we have them, I'm playing along by a.) voting, b.) complaining. [1]
It would be good if the next vote would allow "none" as an option. I could not vote 'none' on the last election. And I think it is important to track the percentage of people who want to kill the meaningless names.
That's a good suggestion for future votes.
At the moment, the best you can do is cast 0 votes for all choices. That won't really change the outcome, but at least votes will be recorded.
That's in fact what I did.
That begs the question: what if the elected word has received a very low score compared to the maximum possible?
That would mean that it received a very small support from our community, and in fact that the majority was either voting for no name or for none of the proposed names.
If that happened, would we decide that Fedora would not be named, because no proposal managed to raise enough support?
That's nonsense. A non vote may have different reasons you cannot simply put them into one category. The most common reason for non voting is lack of carrying. So the best way to deal with non votes is to ignore them (like pretty much any reasonable election process does).
I didn't say non-vote from people who don't care, I said people who do care and actively vote for none of the proposals. That's very different.
OK, if there is an active none option and that option wins sure.
And no matter the reason why that would happen, the fact is that if the maximum possible for a name is 8000 (8 names, 1000 voters) and the best name is elected with e.g 100 points, then that means that even the most voted for failed to receive the support of the voters, and that as a result it doesn't represent them.
If that happened, would we still go with a name that doesn't represent even the people who made the effort of voting?
The election process says "the one with the highest source win" which makes sense. If we have a "none" option that can be selected and also automatically wins when the source of the wining name is "to low" then this would be a skewed process.
So picking the winning name would be the better choice yes.