Mike McGrath asks a pertinent question: why didn’t you vote? Although I did actually take the time to vote, I can totally understand why someone wouldn’t.
For one thing, as others have said, a lot of the candidates were quite similar: they said many similar things, and I don’t doubt any of them could do the job competently.
Personally, I tried to vote on issues where possible. I voted for people who had a clear view of what “Fedora” means to them, and sided with those who had a specific vision (that is to say, not those who take a pluralistic all-things-to-all-men approach). I tried to vote for bettter communication (though most candidates were pro- that), and for those who had a track record of commitment: these various “posts” don’t really have much in terms of power, so I mostly am interested in a. what the person would bring in terms of time and resources, and b. the attitude of the person.
I have to add that many of my votes were coloured by mailing list conduct – that’s mainly where my view of the candidates was formed, because I couldn’t really get through all the town hall stuff, and didn’t think it as accurate a picture of behaviour in any event. Where I thought possible, I voted pro- “be excellent to each other” candidates, and less favouably to those I didn’t think had been so excellent to people.
It’s a really complex picture, and many people eligible to vote I suspect just don’t come into contact with many of the candidates. I know I have only really had dealings with one, who was indeed excellent to me, and so he definitely got my vote. But beyond that, it was actually quite difficult to choose between.