As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.
The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain” option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the RFC
As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.
The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC
Thanks for putting this RFC together.
I’ve been torn on the topic, but I ultimately decided to vote against it because I’m not comfortable with the possible “tracking” aspect. At the moment, it’s not possible to tell whether someone didn’t vote because they were undecided or simply because they moved on to something else at the time.
As you note in the RFC, selecting “abstain” should be interpreted the same as “didn’t vote”. However, once explicit abstention becomes part of the recorded stats, that changes the dynamic: we’d be tracking a choice that was previously invisible. To me, that only makes sense in a representative context, where voters hold a mandate. In our setting, I think it might better to avoid opening that door.
As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.
The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC
I also voted "no" as for me there is no added value in the Abstain-option from a voting point of view.
And as the RFC does not mention any possible future additions/modifications regarding quorum I do not see a reason to change the current voting process just to make it clear that someone didn't want to vote opposed to someone forgot to vote.
Cheers
Andreas
PS: I do hope that we at one point get to introduce quorum! And then I will definitely support it!
--
,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Appointments - Nextcloud |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
And as the RFC does not mention any possible future additions/modifications regarding quorum
The RFC literally mentions “Quorum” as a “possible future modification” by listing “Introducing a quorum” in the “Future Scope” section. So I don't quite follow.
As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.
The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC
I don’t have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the “implementation” for this…
As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.
The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC
I don’t have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the “implementation” for this…
Good call about the table. I’ve been thinking of this for a while now.
As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.
The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC
I don't have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it
makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen
and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to
remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g
bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation" for
this...
Regards
Jakub
It's the long commit hash in the table that makes it wide in this case.
But I can have a look at getting rid of the duplication (regardless of whether the RFC passes)
Am 19.08.25 um 14:47 schrieb Tim Düsterhus:
> Hi
>
> Am 2025-08-19 14:06, schrieb Andreas Heigl:
>> And as the RFC does not mention any possible future additions/
>> modifications regarding quorum
>
> The RFC literally mentions “Quorum” as a “possible future modification”
> by listing “Introducing a quorum” in the “Future Scope” section. So I
> don't quite follow.
I explicitly looked for that and seem to indeed have overlooked it!
Thank you, Tim!
In that case I stand corrected and - as already mentioned - changed my vote!
Regards
Andreas
--
,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Appointments - Nextcloud |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.
The RFC was accepted with 27 (Yes) to 7 (No) votes and 6 abstentions (79%).
I've asked for the PR to be merged and will proceed with updating the template and the RFCs that are currently under discussion to include the “Abstain” option.
