RE: Low voter registration and candidate bias

Greetings Havoc,

I'm aware that the 'pure users' are not eligible to vote, and that they did
indeed make up part of the sample I was quoting.  I would argue that within
the user list are probably contributors to documents and other non-coding
stuff, and they may not be on the devel lists (Though I would agree that
they are probably in the minority, and that most of the subscribed to user
lists are either 1)pure users, or 2) developers that are on the list to hear
user feedback...).

It is unfortunate that half (or thereabouts) of the registered voters are of
the 'I submitted a bug report once' nature.  I realize that the elections
have been mentioned on LWN and other general news sites, but I would have
expected an event of this nature to have been publicized where those that
have the greatest vested interest in the events are likely to see them.  (I
must of had horrible timing with my reading of gnotices, I generally read it
once weekly and yet only recall the announcement of the candidates.  Ah
well, sa-la-vie.)

I apologize for my implication of 'corporate bias' your analysis makes it
clear that I very much overstated the case.  I agree that many of those
listed appear to be among the most dedicated individuals, and certainly have
earned their place among the voting populace.

"On your point 3), short notice on nominating yourself, the 75-word summary
announce was not the notice for nominating yourself, the actual notice was
well before that. We have tons of candidates representing a wide range of
interests. Maybe a couple people who wanted to run didn't get to, but this
is sort of inevitable if you have any deadline at all."

Fair enough...

"[...]Already I think the top names are too likely to get elected vs. the
people who would be best for this job. Though I hope I'll be wrong and
voters will be following this list and making an informed judgment."

Yes, that is a rather unfortunate effect of a popular vote, in that mere
name recognition can sway those who are not willing to take the time to
inform themselves.  I share your hope that those who have taken the time to
register will take the time to learn about the candidates and their
responsibilities...  (In that respect it was unfortunate that /. mentioned
the elections, for I'm sure they'll make up a significant percentage of the
registered voters who won't make a reasoned analysis of the candidates ... )

"When it comes right down to it, we have to draw the line somewhere someday.
We need to get stuff done; there are already several important issues with
time constraints I know of that are queued for the board to sort out. If we
don't have a board soon, then some random people are going to make up
answers to these issues as we've always
done in the past."

That's a good point.  Given you're well reasoned argument, I'll withdraw my
objections.  (As I said in another post, the outcome I expect will largely
the same even if a great deal more voters were participating , my concern
was mostly for the communications and consensus building aspects, which were
apparently better conveyed than I realized.  I must of been looking the
wrong way when things were announced (I had most of a month stretch of 14-16
hr days that might have had something to do with it <grin>.  To heck with
start-ups, I'm gonna go be a Renta-Cop at the mall - heheh)

"One step we've already taken to address this issue in the future: the
foundation-announce mailing list has been and will continue to receive
announcements of ALL deadlines, minutes from board meetings, etc. - the idea
being, if you want to know what's up, subscribe here; if you don't, no
whining later. ;-)"

Heheh - fair enough <smile>.

"Well, maybe this mail is over-long. We've set out a process for doing the
elections this time though, and I think we should stick to the rules we
established. Hopefully I've addressed some of the fears you have. Next year
people will have a year of warning, so there should be no problem at all

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns.  I agree that given
the time constraints you mentioned above, in addition to your reasoned
responses to my statements, lead me to agree that we should 'stick to the

Tom M.
TomM pentstar com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]