FESCo election nominations now open

[Ankur Sinha]

On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 15:27 -0500, inode0 wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andreas Thienemann <andreas at bawue.net> wrote:
> > Fedora has always been (more or less) a meritocracy. Whoever does the
> > work, has the power to define the direction fedora is taking.
> 
> This I believe is the hardest nut to crack with Fedora elections. The
> Fedora Board and FESCo and others think of themselves as being part of
> a meritocracy (at least that is my perception of what they think) but
> at the same time are trying to encourage more widespread democratic
> participation which naturally runs counter to perpetuating the
> meritocracy.
> 
> Candidates actions historically speak volumes about them in Fedora
> elections as the few doing the electing know them. With wide open
> elections where voters do not know the candidates all sorts of new
> problems arise and the expectations and demands of naive voters seem
> to be a silly burden to the candidates. The same people are getting
> elected either way because the same people thus far self-nominate and
> voter participation remains low.
> 
> I'm not sure what the perceived benefit was of making the election
> process more open, other than more open seems a good thing to us
> instinctively.
> 
> John
> 

+1 to that. Take me for example, I've been around for sometime and heave
_HEARD_ all the candidates names somewhere or the other, and read their
mails on the lists and maybe taken help from them sometime over the IRC
etc. However, I agree with what John had written earlier.. 

"Well, letting a much broader segment of the Fedora community vote
causes a disconnect with me. If they aren't "fit" to run for an open
seat why are they "fit" to elect those who are?"

I still don't think I'm fit to vote.. :|

-- 
regards,

Ankur