[gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Torsten Veller]

As you know the by GLEP 39 council members are marked as slacker if they
(or their proxy) fail to show up for two consecutive meetings.

Being marked as slacker makes your council life much harder. While a
council member can miss every second meeting without consequences. A
slacker who "misses any further meeting (or their appointed proxy
doesn't show up), they lose their position and a new election is held to
replace that person. The newly elected council member gets a 'reduced'
term so that the yearly elections still elect a full group."

So this might be a problem since yesterday's meeting:
lu_zero wasn't there for the second time in a row. If we follow GLPE 39
he'll get the slacker mark.

We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this council
started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can be missed
in the next 9 month.

As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council
(take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one)
one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further
meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again:

"Council members who have previously been booted for excessive slacking
may stand for future elections, including the election for their
replacement. They should, however, justify their slackerness, and should
expect to have it pointed out if they don't do so themselves."

Ideas?

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Peter Volkov]

В Птн, 26/09/2008 в 09:51 +0200, Torsten Veller пишет:
> As you know the by GLEP 39 council members are marked as slacker if they
> (or their proxy) fail to show up for two consecutive meetings.

> lu_zero wasn't there for the second time in a row. If we follow GLPE 39
> he'll get the slacker mark.

This should be done because we follow what was stated by us (or those
who were before us and we kept silence).

> We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this council
> started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can be missed
> in the next 9 month.
> 
> As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council
> (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one)
> one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further
> meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again:
> 
> "Council members who have previously been booted for excessive slacking
> may stand for future elections, including the election for their
> replacement. They should, however, justify their slackerness, and should
> expect to have it pointed out if they don't do so themselves."
> 
> Ideas?

Why all council should be responsible for one? If council member fails
to find time to get to meetings then it's good for all if he leaves
council, but I don't see any reason to call new global vote. So it's
better to modify GLEP 39 and state that such council member should be
replaced using default replacement strategy, and could be elected again
(drop part elections about slackerness).

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 673 bytes --]

Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> said:
> Why all council should be responsible for one? If council member fails
> to find time to get to meetings then it's good for all if he leaves
> council, but I don't see any reason to call new global vote. So it's
> better to modify GLEP 39 and state that such council member should be
> replaced using default replacement strategy, and could be elected again
> (drop part elections about slackerness).

The election is just for a new single member, not for the whole
council.

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Luca Barbato]

Ned Ludd wrote:
> Luca/lu_zero whats up?

Well, I didn't plan to be busy neither times, I just happen to got worse 
than I expect (I was still ill from a bad pneumonia).

Yesterday I hoped to be completely recovered but looks like I was still 
too weak...

Well sucks to be me ^^;

Beside that, having twice the meetings means more than doubling the 
chances to miss them for a reason or another, so I think the whole idea 
of the slacker token could be revised accordingly.

lu

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> said:
> Beside that, having twice the meetings means more than doubling the chances 
> to miss them for a reason or another, so I think the whole idea of the 
> slacker token could be revised accordingly.

I'm not sure if I agree with that.  It shouldn't be too difficult to
find a proxy for yourself in those situations where you aren't going to
be able to make it to the meeting.

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Luca Barbato]

Mark Loeser wrote:
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> said:
>> Beside that, having twice the meetings means more than doubling the chances 
>> to miss them for a reason or another, so I think the whole idea of the 
>> slacker token could be revised accordingly.
> 
> I'm not sure if I agree with that.  It shouldn't be too difficult to
> find a proxy for yourself in those situations where you aren't going to
> be able to make it to the meeting.

Those situations in my case were basically fainting about few hours 
before the council ^^. I could point other events in which you couldn't 
expect to be missing (network outage, got jammed in the traffic, lost in 
the woods...). Obviously the best would be take a default proxy for each 
of us for those unlikely cases.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1718 bytes --]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:12:54 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> said:
> >> Beside that, having twice the meetings means more than doubling the chances 
> >> to miss them for a reason or another, so I think the whole idea of the 
> >> slacker token could be revised accordingly.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if I agree with that.  It shouldn't be too difficult to
> > find a proxy for yourself in those situations where you aren't going to
> > be able to make it to the meeting.
> 
> Those situations in my case were basically fainting about few hours 
> before the council ^^. I could point other events in which you couldn't 
> expect to be missing (network outage, got jammed in the traffic, lost in 
> the woods...). Obviously the best would be take a default proxy for each 
> of us for those unlikely cases.
> 

I hope you are feeling better --- that sounds pretty unpleasant.  I
like your idea, though.  Certainly the whole idea behind the slacker
rules is to ensure that people who can show up do show up, and if they
know they can't, they send a proxy.  I can't see that we would have
anything to gain by penalizing someone who unavoidably and unexpectedly
can't make it.

This would mean that the default proxies would have to commit to be
available for the meetings, though.  I guess that's for each council
member and proxy to work out individually.

> lu
> 
> -- 
> 
> Luca Barbato
> Gentoo Council Member
> Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
> 
> 

Regards,
Ferris

--
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Roy Bamford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.09.27 00:19, Ferris McCormick wrote:
[snip]
>
> This would mean that the default proxies would have to commit to be
> available for the meetings, though.  I guess that's for each council
> member and proxy to work out individually.
>
[snip]
>
> Regards,
> Ferris
>
> --
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
>

Ferris,

The default proxy approach means we would have a 'shadow' council doing
all the work to be the council in case they were called. There is a lot
more to do than just showing up at meetings.

Some of the waste would be mitigated by planned outages of the primary
council members but to manage the unexpected, the shadows would need to
be ready at a moments notice.

- --
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkjeYBwACgkQTE4/y7nJvau58wCfS2cqaHcP35opo4P6AkwCCnPP
rl0An0hNGrdPtw6j72QkyCIb5p48jioZ
=5lV1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Ned Ludd]

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 11:53 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Luca/lu_zero whats up?
> 
> Well, I didn't plan to be busy neither times, I just happen to got worse 
> than I expect (I was still ill from a bad pneumonia).

Sorry to hear that. I hope you start to feel better soon.

> Yesterday I hoped to be completely recovered but looks like I was still 
> too weak...
> 
> Well sucks to be me ^^;
> 
> Beside that, having twice the meetings means more than doubling the 
> chances to miss them for a reason or another, so I think the whole idea 
> of the slacker token could be revised accordingly.

The so called slacker mark was intended for the 12 month * 1 meeting per
month strategy. If you guys moved to a 24 meetings in a 12 month period
then yes w/o a doubt it should be revised accordingly.

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

On Friday 26 September 2008, Torsten Veller wrote:
> We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this council
> started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can be missed
> in the next 9 month.
>
> As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council
> (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one)
> one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further
> meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again:

just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a booted 
slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is kicked out.  
elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original list is a 
lot simpler.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Ned Ludd]

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 26 September 2008, Torsten Veller wrote:
> > We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this council
> > started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can be missed
> > in the next 9 month.
> >
> > As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council
> > (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one)
> > one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further
> > meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again:
> 
> just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a booted 
> slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is kicked out.  
> elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original list is a 
> lot simpler.
> -mike


I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the
council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if you
see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's good
enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get sick
etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the
council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Roy Bamford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.09.26 20:57, Ned Ludd wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
[snip]
> > 
> > just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a
> booted 
> > slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is
> kicked out.  
> > elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original
> list is a 
> > lot simpler.
> > -mike
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the
> council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if
> you
> see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's 
> good
> enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get
> sick
> etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the
> council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo.
> 

Solar++

Allow the remaining council members to recruit any dev for the role, if 
the any dev agrees. Such recruits serve until the next election, when 
they can stand on their merits.

It allows the council (if they wish) to appoint someone who complements 
the remaining members.  It takes a little longer than the 
'inheirentence' method but I would expect it to produce a stronger 
council. 

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkjdRTQACgkQTE4/y7nJvauJxACglP5gfqPlOEQ5p5YpH6fHHUnB
rDMAoInSUExtGCWmp9EKZjiM1DIB3Xiq
=SJhY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Ned Ludd]

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 21:25 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2008.09.26 20:57, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a
> > booted 
> > > slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is
> > kicked out.  
> > > elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original
> > list is a 
> > > lot simpler.
> > > -mike
> > 
> > 
> > I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the
> > council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if
> > you
> > see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's 
> > good
> > enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get
> > sick
> > etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the
> > council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo.
> > 
> 
> Solar++
> 
> Allow the remaining council members to recruit any dev for the role, if 
> the any dev agrees. Such recruits serve until the next election, when 
> they can stand on their merits.
> 
> It allows the council (if they wish) to appoint someone who complements 
> the remaining members.  It takes a little longer than the 
> 'inheirentence' method but I would expect it to produce a stronger 
> council. 

Is that a good idea either? I'm not feeling it. I like the council idea
mostly but I don't they should be the ones appointing others.

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Friday 26 September 2008, Torsten Veller wrote:
>>> We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this council
>>> started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can be missed
>>> in the next 9 month.
>>>
>>> As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council
>>> (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one)
>>> one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further
>>> meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again:
>> just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a booted 
>> slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is kicked out.  
>> elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original list is a 
>> lot simpler.
>> -mike
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the
> council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if you
> see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's good
> enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get sick
> etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the
> council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo.

Ned,

I understand your point, but the rule is that the remaining council
members can opt to select the next in line or to open an election for
the vacant spot. So going down the line isn't automatic.
Perhaps we should also add a rule that if 50% (other percentage?) of the
original council is replaced, we need to have a new election.


- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjdfdMACgkQcAWygvVEyAI7pgCgimAhLkl9Rup5QIHrCuYUuL8T
85QAnjpyi7QAF3Q2rVm1Q5VRIcDEClBw
=sRPf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] The slacker mark

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1570 bytes --]

On Friday 26 September 2008, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 26 September 2008, Torsten Veller wrote:
> > > We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this
> > > council started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can
> > > be missed in the next 9 month.
> > >
> > > As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council
> > > (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one)
> > > one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further
> > > meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again:
> >
> > just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a booted
> > slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is kicked
> > out. elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original
> > list is a lot simpler.
>
> I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the
> council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if you
> see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's good
> enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get sick
> etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the
> council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo.

as Jorge points out, that is why the existing council members need to accept 
the new person.  if the remaining 6 are weak, then the council would skip 
over them and we'd be back at the voting step.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]