On 13/10/19 11:57 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Simon Lees <sflees(a)suse.de> [10-13-19 03:44]:
On 10/12/19 7:19 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Ish Sookun <ish.sookun(a)lasentinelle.mu>
On 10/12/19 12:31 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> and how are you tallying the "Abstention" votes w/o and indication that
> "Abstention" is desired rather than "just not voting".
What I meant is that the act of not voting in itself is abstention.
but it is not
recorded and indiscernible from not voting. there is a
difference from abstention and not voting and they are not equal. one
would have to know the choice was made and not just failing to vote.
Given that all our ballots are private and no one can see who voted for what
I don't think abstain really means anything, its not like Australia where it
is compulsory to turn up and vote.
Having abstain doesn't really tell us anything other then making the result
more complex and giving people something to argue over. Personally if we
went back and added it i'd just ignore it.
We also have to remember that starting a new vote would cause some confusion
and we would have to work hard to ensure that people who already voted don't
get confused and not vote because they think they already have.
While the current vote isn't perfect I think that starting another vote now
will just make things worse. The board has made it clear that we are after
an indication of whether people would like the openSUSE name changed or not
so that we can take that data forward into our future decision making and
will try our best to implement that solution, with that in mind while the
current naming isn't the best we had it does ask that question.
abstention indicates the provided options are not viable to the
voter where not voting indicates a lack of interest or not knowing there
is a vote. then a large number of abstentions would indicate the outcome
of the vote was seriously flawed.
and I understand completely the problems with leadership by committee but
an uninformed vote and/or a indecisive ballot do not provide information
worthy of action.
I have read most, but all, of the thread(s) regarding the matter of name
change of 'openSUSE'.
My take on the matter is that someone is pushing their own agenda and
the decision to change the name from openSUSE to whatever (yet to be
decided no doubt by another "vote" of the Community members [which count
how many? some 286 or so voters?]) has already been made.
Perhaps I missed the statement, which is quite possible, but I haven't
seen where any member of the past or current board has stated that an
approach was made to the SUSE management and/or SUSE's legal team and
the question was asked of them, "Is their some insurmountable problem
which would be faced if the name 'openSUSE' was used for the creation of
the suggested '[openSUSE] Foundation'?"
Now, I would have thought that this would have been the very first thing
that should have been settled; if the answer was that there is/are no
insurmountable problem(s) then their is no need for the vote which is
now being conducted, but if the answer was 'Yes' then the everyone's
time and effort in creating this poll of the 'Communiy' would be
directed at "What should be now call 'openSUSE'. (And I'll bet that
name has already been determined by whoever is pushing their agenda in
If I have missed the part where SUSE management and their legal team has
been asked "The Question" then I apologise for wasting your time in
reading what I wrote and would greatly appreciate it if 'you' could
point me to the the post(s) where the response to "The Question" was quoted.
NOTE: I am not a voter in this poll, but for the record, as I previously
wrote, I FIRMLY do NOT want the name 'openSUSE' chanaged.
Adolescence n: Stage between puberty and adultery.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org