[gentoo-council] Stepping back from council duties

[gentoo-council] Stepping back from council duties

[Markus Ullmann]

Hey guys,

as some of you noticed I haven't been active recently... A bunch of 
things happened that made it almost impossible to do more than regular 
bumps for some things.

Nevertheless to allow council to do good work, I'm stepping back as part 
of the council. I'm feeling sorry that this step is needed, really. So 
keep up the good work...

Best Regards,
Jokey

Re: [gentoo-council] Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 645 bytes --]

On 17:05 Sat 15 Nov     , Markus Ullmann wrote:
> Nevertheless to allow council to do good work, I'm stepping back as part  
> of the council. I'm feeling sorry that this step is needed, really. So  
> keep up the good work...

Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a 
distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and 
"even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than 
filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the 
bottom half of candidates.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

[gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Torsten Veller]

* Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:
> Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a 
> distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and 
> "even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than 
> filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the 
> bottom half of candidates.

The "bottom half" depends somehow on the number of candidates.

This is the ranked list:
|  1  dberkholz
|  2  Halcy0n
|  3  Flameeyes
|  4  Betelgeuse
|  5  lu_zero
|  6  Jokey
|  7  dertobi123
|  8  cardoe
|  9  dev-zero
| 10  leio
| 11  welp
| 12  fmccor
| 13  ulm
| 14  jer
| 15  hkBst
| 16  astinus
| 17  ferdy peper
| 18  zlin

What is the bottom half?

By ranks:
1-9 is the first half, and 10-18 the second.

Or did you already remove rank 18?

| * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
|   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
|   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
|   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
|   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
|   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
|   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
|   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
    <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>

So your options are:
- Change the rules once again. Because you can.
- Follow the rules.

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2577 bytes --]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:04:58 +0100
Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:

> * Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:
> > Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a 
> > distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and 
> > "even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than 
> > filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the 
> > bottom half of candidates.
> 
> The "bottom half" depends somehow on the number of candidates.
> 
> This is the ranked list:
> |  1  dberkholz
> |  2  Halcy0n
> |  3  Flameeyes
> |  4  Betelgeuse
> |  5  lu_zero
> |  6  Jokey
> |  7  dertobi123
> |  8  cardoe
> |  9  dev-zero
> | 10  leio
> | 11  welp
> | 12  fmccor
> | 13  ulm
> | 14  jer
> | 15  hkBst
> | 16  astinus
> | 17  ferdy peper
> | 18  zlin
> 
> What is the bottom half?
> 
> By ranks:
> 1-9 is the first half, and 10-18 the second.
> 
> Or did you already remove rank 18?
> 
> | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
> |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
> |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
> |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
> |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
> |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
> |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
> |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
>     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
> 
> So your options are:
> - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
> - Follow the rules.
> 
Based on that, it looks like the alternative to moving further down the
list is to hold an election for the open spot.  That seems more
reasonable than leaving it open because the next election is several
months away.  And something might come along that needs a tie breaker
vote.

By the way, the final ranking only shows an ordering by preference.  It
does not say anything about whether or not the developer community
would not want any of these candidates as council members.

While we are at it, please remove my name from the list no matter how
this gets decided.  As a trustee, I am now not allowed to sit on Council

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] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:04:58 +0100
> Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> * Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:
>>> Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a 
>>> distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and 
>>> "even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than 
>>> filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the 
>>> bottom half of candidates.
>> The "bottom half" depends somehow on the number of candidates.
>>

Torsten,

Donnie is talking here about the relative votes each candidate received
and not about the rank of a candidate in relation to others.

>> This is the ranked list:
>> |  1  dberkholz
>> |  2  Halcy0n
>> |  3  Flameeyes
>> |  4  Betelgeuse
>> |  5  lu_zero
>> |  6  Jokey
>> |  7  dertobi123
>> |  8  cardoe
>> |  9  dev-zero
>> | 10  leio
>> | 11  welp
>> | 12  fmccor
>> | 13  ulm
>> | 14  jer
>> | 15  hkBst
>> | 16  astinus
>> | 17  ferdy peper
>> | 18  zlin
>>
>> What is the bottom half?
>>
>> By ranks:
>> 1-9 is the first half, and 10-18 the second.
>>
>> Or did you already remove rank 18?
>>

It doesn't matter if there were 18, 15 or 100 candidates in the ballot.
What matters is the distribution of votes.

>> | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
>> |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
>> |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
>> |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
>> |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
>> |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
>> |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
>> |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
>>     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
>>
>> So your options are:
>> - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
>> - Follow the rules.
>>
> Based on that, it looks like the alternative to moving further down the
> list is to hold an election for the open spot.  That seems more
> reasonable than leaving it open because the next election is several
> months away.  And something might come along that needs a tie breaker
> vote.

I agree with Ferris. This election could be done with the "reduced"
timelines (that we should really start considering as the default
timelines) of 15 days to nominate + 15 days to vote.

> By the way, the final ranking only shows an ordering by preference.  It
> does not say anything about whether or not the developer community
> would not want any of these candidates as council members.
> 
> While we are at it, please remove my name from the list no matter how
> this gets decided.  As a trustee, I am now not allowed to sit on Council

Ferris,

there's no need to remove your name from the list or anyone else's for
the matter. Those were the names in the ballot and the order of the
votes, if we are (were?) to move down the list, we would need to check
whether the next person would still qualify as a council member or not.

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

- --
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

iEYEARECAAYFAkkgI/sACgkQcAWygvVEyAJjyACeLjsGCK7/Fz0HpP2eM+52fLpK
7N4An0flzgypP0TKDj/F7NBHvY5HmDZN
=0whj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Torsten Veller]

* "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>:
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> * Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:
> >>> Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a 
> >>> distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and 
> >>> "even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than 
> >>> filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the 
> >>> bottom half of candidates.
> >> The "bottom half" depends somehow on the number of candidates.
> 
> Donnie is talking here about the relative votes each candidate received
> and not about the rank of a candidate in relation to others.
[...]
> It doesn't matter if there were 18, 15 or 100 candidates in the ballot.
> What matters is the distribution of votes.

We can't vote for "reelection".
If one says "Dev A" is a better council candidate than "Dev B" it doesn't
mean that "Dev B" is not a good council candidate.


 |      #     # #
 |      #     # #
 |   #  #     # #
 |   #  #     # #
 |#  ## #  #  # #
 |#  ## #  #  # #
 |#  ## #  #  # #
 |#  ##### # ## ##
 |## ##### # ## ##
 |######## #########
 |######## #########
 |######## #########
 |##################
 |##################
 +-------------------

So how would you backup the claim about "relative votes" and "ranked in
the bottom half of candidates"?


Jorge, or any other election official, can you explain why the master
ballot contains 145 ballots and council-2008-results.txt says: "We
received 143 valid votes and two invalid (two people who forgot to issue
votify --submit)."

Re: [gentoo-council] Stepping back from council duties

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1494 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 17:05 Sat 15 Nov     , Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > Nevertheless to allow council to do good work, I'm stepping back as part  
> > of the council. I'm feeling sorry that this step is needed, really. So  
> > keep up the good work...
> 
> Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a 
> distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and 

If we use this as a criteria for example amne wouldn't have been a
member of the 2007 council - also it would be discuss-worthy if Cardoe
and myself are eligible members for the 2008 council using that
criteria ... I think that criteria simply doesn't work.

> "even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than 
> filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the 
> bottom half of candidates.

In any case leaving the spot open is not an option for me either, if we
have 3 votes for $something and 3 votes against $something - what to do
then? It makes much sense to have an odd number of council members.

I therefore suggest to follow the process being used in the past -
taking a look at the next one in the election ranking and if a majority
of council member think this one doesn't fit into the current council
get developers to vote on a replacement for Jokey.

  Tobias

-- 
Gentoo Linux - Die Metadistribution
http://www.mitp.de/5941
http://www.metadistribution.eu

https://www.xing.com/profile/Tobias_Scherbaum

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

On 17:48 Sun 16 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> If we use this as a criteria for example amne wouldn't have been a
> member of the 2007 council - also it would be discuss-worthy if Cardoe
> and myself are eligible members for the 2008 council using that
> criteria ... I think that criteria simply doesn't work.

It's a criterium that only really makes sense with a field of candidates 
that is more than 2*(# of council spots) along with my additional 
interpretation that people far below the 7th person are not desired on 
the council. We additionally know that other people chose not to 
nominate themselves because they thought that enough good potential 
members were running. In the general case, you're right.

If the election officials had done as Ciaran and I suggested more than 
once, this wouldn't be a problem. That was to include a "nobody" 
candidate. Anyone ranked below that would not be eligible for a council 
position. So I again strongly advise that this be done in the future.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1174 bytes --]

On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov     , Torsten Veller wrote:
> Or did you already remove rank 18?
> 
> | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
> |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
> |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
> |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
> |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
> |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
> |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
> |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
>     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
> 
> So your options are:
> - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
> - Follow the rules.

Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for 
Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of 
blindly followed.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2086 bytes --]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov     , Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Or did you already remove rank 18?
> > 
> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
> > |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
> > |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
> > |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
> > |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
> > |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
> > |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
> > |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
> >     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
> > 
> > So your options are:
> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
> > - Follow the rules.
> 
> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for 
> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of 
> blindly followed.
> 

I agree with that.  In this case, it seems to me that 7 council members
is better for Gentoo than 6, and if the Council members do not
unanimously accept anyone down the list, then just hold an election for
the missing spot.  I think the rules pretty much have it right here.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your analysis, as that is a
matter for the council members.  I'm just saying that rather than hold
the position open, just hold a brief election to fill it.

To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your
and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal.  Good idea, put me in the "support"
column.

Regards,
Ferris
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
> Donnie Berkholz
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


--
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] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]

Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for 
> > Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of 
> > blindly followed.

Agreed, but it needs to be a clear procedure. "more positive than
negative" isn't a clear and comprehensible criteria as it leaves much
room for discussion. Fixing broken rules with another
may-be-somewhat-broken rule won't help us.

> To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your
> and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal.  Good idea, put me in the "support"
> column.

Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person running
in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible breakup
between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who don't
(and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person filling
that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when "nobody"
is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)?

  Tobias

-- 
Gentoo Linux - Die Metadistribution
http://www.mitp.de/5941
http://www.metadistribution.eu

https://www.xing.com/profile/Tobias_Scherbaum

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 596 bytes --]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:40:43 +0100
Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person running
> in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible breakup
> between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who
> don't (and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person
> filling that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when
> "nobody" is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)?

The Debian nobody is called "reopen nominations".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov     , Torsten Veller wrote:
>> > Or did you already remove rank 18?
>> >
>> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
>> > |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
>> > |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
>> > |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
>> > |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
>> > |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
>> > |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
>> > |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
>> >     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
>> >
>> > So your options are:
>> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
>> > - Follow the rules.
>>
>> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for
>> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of
>> blindly followed.
>>
>
> I agree with that.  In this case, it seems to me that 7 council members
> is better for Gentoo than 6, and if the Council members do not
> unanimously accept anyone down the list, then just hold an election for
> the missing spot.  I think the rules pretty much have it right here.
>
> I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your analysis, as that is a
> matter for the council members.  I'm just saying that rather than hold
> the position open, just hold a brief election to fill it.

By its very definition our election process tends not to be brief.  I
believe the best we have done in the past is 2 weeks of nominations
followed by 2 weeks of voting (previous council vote).  Do you propose
something faster or will one month of 6 members be satisfactory?

-Alec

>
> To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your
> and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal.  Good idea, put me in the "support"
> column.
>
> Regards,
> Ferris
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Donnie
>>
>> Donnie Berkholz
>> Developer, Gentoo Linux
>> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
>
>
> --
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
>

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3192 bytes --]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:36:13 -0800
"Alec Warner" <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov     , Torsten Veller wrote:
> >> > Or did you already remove rank 18?
> >> >
> >> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
> >> > |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
> >> > |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
> >> > |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
> >> > |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
> >> > |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
> >> > |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
> >> > |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
> >> >     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
> >> >
> >> > So your options are:
> >> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
> >> > - Follow the rules.
> >>
> >> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for
> >> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of
> >> blindly followed.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with that.  In this case, it seems to me that 7 council members
> > is better for Gentoo than 6, and if the Council members do not
> > unanimously accept anyone down the list, then just hold an election for
> > the missing spot.  I think the rules pretty much have it right here.
> >
> > I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your analysis, as that is a
> > matter for the council members.  I'm just saying that rather than hold
> > the position open, just hold a brief election to fill it.
> 
> By its very definition our election process tends not to be brief.  I
> believe the best we have done in the past is 2 weeks of nominations
> followed by 2 weeks of voting (previous council vote).  Do you propose
> something faster or will one month of 6 members be satisfactory?
> 
> -Alec
> 

Is that addressed to me?  I'm not sure I understand your question, but
by "brief" I just meant Jorge's schedule.  All I'm saying is that one
way or another we should fill the position, and if Council choose to
fill it by holding an election rather than by moving to the next
developer on the list, then the schedule is what it is.

> >
> > To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your
> > and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal.  Good idea, put me in the "support"
> > column.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ferris
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Donnie
> >>
> >> Donnie Berkholz
> >> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> >> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
> > Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
> >

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] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Torsten Veller wrote:
> * "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>:
> 
> Jorge, or any other election official, can you explain why the master
> ballot contains 145 ballots and council-2008-results.txt says: "We
> received 143 valid votes and two invalid (two people who forgot to issue
> votify --submit)."
> 

Torsten,

thanks for calling our attention to this. It turns out that we got
confused and mixed up the numbers. So the correct number is that there
were 147 ballots, but 2 of them were not submitted and thus we got the
145 valid ballots.
My apologies for the election officials.

- --
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

iEYEARECAAYFAkkg3Q4ACgkQcAWygvVEyAILowCfagXLgC/FY4EKFDdxDnjLQpYc
ZWYAn3aG9ifHOQmCHCTSzg2ltpgnbN2K
=zjn5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 853 bytes --]

On 19:40 Sun 16 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person running
> in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible breakup
> between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who don't
> (and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person filling
> that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when "nobody"
> is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)?

Have a smaller council. The largest number of odd people <=7 that are 
ranked above "nobody". There's no reason it has to be 7, and it seems to 
me that on a 7-person council, about half end up doing mostly nothing 
that's related to being on the council.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 810 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:40:43 +0100
> Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person running
> > in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible breakup
> > between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who
> > don't (and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person
> > filling that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when
> > "nobody" is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)?
> 
> The Debian nobody is called "reopen nominations".

Well, they elect 1 person, we elect 7 - with a nobody called "reopen
nominations" it's compared to Debian more likely that we would run into
a neverending election process ... 

  Tobias

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1108 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 19:40 Sun 16 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> > Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person running
> > in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible breakup
> > between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who don't
> > (and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person filling
> > that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when "nobody"
> > is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)?
> 
> Have a smaller council. The largest number of odd people <=7 that are 
> ranked above "nobody". There's no reason it has to be 7, and it seems to 
> me that on a 7-person council, about half end up doing mostly nothing 
> that's related to being on the council.

So we could end up with only 1 council member in the worst case? ;) I
don't think that's something we really want. In my opinion we need to
have at minimum 5 council members to make sure there's some kind of
redundancy plus to get different views and ideas on issues brought up to
the council.

  Tobias

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]

On 18:49 Mon 17 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> So we could end up with only 1 council member in the worst case? ;)

Yes, although worst is a matter of definition. If the developer 
community wants what is effectively a benevolent dictator, then let's 
give it to them. This is, after all, a community distribution so we 
should do what the community wants.

> I don't think that's something we really want.

The majority of developers should choose what kind of leadership they 
want, instead of us deciding for them.

> In my opinion we need to have at minimum 5 council members to make 
> sure there's some kind of redundancy plus to get different views and 
> ideas on issues brought up to the council.

Anyone can contribute views and ideas ... why do you need to be on the 
council to do that? Most of the issues are discussed on -dev, and I've 
pushed to make that a requirement and meetings as primarily just votes.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:38:17 +0100
Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The Debian nobody is called "reopen nominations".
> 
> Well, they elect 1 person, we elect 7 - with a nobody called "reopen
> nominations" it's compared to Debian more likely that we would run
> into a neverending election process ... 

You really think developer confidence in other developers is so low
that RON is going to end up high enough to screw things up?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 682 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:38:17 +0100
> Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > The Debian nobody is called "reopen nominations".
> > 
> > Well, they elect 1 person, we elect 7 - with a nobody called "reopen
> > nominations" it's compared to Debian more likely that we would run
> > into a neverending election process ... 
> 
> You really think developer confidence in other developers is so low
> that RON is going to end up high enough to screw things up?

No, it's a matter of feasibility. It *could* happen - and that's
something that needs to be thought of to make sure to avoid being stuck
in such a process. 

  Tobias


[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Roy Bamford]

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

On 2008.11.17 16:15, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 19:40 Sun 16 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> > Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person
> running
> > in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible 
> breakup
> > between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who
> don't
> > (and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person
> filling
> > that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when
> "nobody"
> > is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)?
> 
> Have a smaller council. The largest number of odd people <=7 that are 
> ranked above "nobody". There's no reason it has to be 7, and it seems
> to 
> me that on a 7-person council, about half end up doing mostly nothing 
> that's related to being on the council.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
> Donnie Berkholz
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
> 
Team,

We overdo the democratic process in Gentoo and it doesn't help our 
decision making at all.

When a member of the council resigns mid term, advertise the post and 
solicit applictions from the developer pool. The remaining council can 
then appoint an applicant for the remander of the term.

While I'm reforming the council, I would like to see the term extended 
to two years with only half the seats being contested each year.
The important thing here is to prevent loss of continuity.

- -- 
Regards,

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkkhuH0ACgkQTE4/y7nJvatCIACgseX9jAe5HclqjPYuPAUIxmex
Ku8AoOpZ5LlJzSSCWc6+DBmdCXuZLw3N
=kc6Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1596 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 18:49 Mon 17 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> > So we could end up with only 1 council member in the worst case? ;)
> 
> Yes, although worst is a matter of definition. If the developer 
> community wants what is effectively a benevolent dictator, then let's 
> give it to them. This is, after all, a community distribution so we 
> should do what the community wants.

That would lead us to completely new (or old) leadership model. If I was
to vote on a council I'd like to get a council, not a benevolent
dictator. 

> > I don't think that's something we really want.
> 
> The majority of developers should choose what kind of leadership they 
> want, instead of us deciding for them.

I'm speaking for myself here - I personally don't want a dictatorship.

> > In my opinion we need to have at minimum 5 council members to make 
> > sure there's some kind of redundancy plus to get different views and 
> > ideas on issues brought up to the council.
> 
> Anyone can contribute views and ideas ... why do you need to be on the 
> council to do that? Most of the issues are discussed on -dev, and I've 
> pushed to make that a requirement and meetings as primarily just votes.

Discussions on a proposal are only one part, but it needs to be voted
upon that proposal. Having a larger council makes sure a broader part of
the developer community and there views are represented in that decision
making. Again, that's my personal opinion - I'm clearly in favor of the
democratic approach instead of a dictatorship model.

  Tobias

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

On 19:31 Mon 17 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Yes, although worst is a matter of definition. If the developer 
> > community wants what is effectively a benevolent dictator, then let's 
> > give it to them. This is, after all, a community distribution so we 
> > should do what the community wants.
> 
> That would lead us to completely new (or old) leadership model. If I was
> to vote on a council I'd like to get a council, not a benevolent
> dictator. 

I want to stress again that would only lead us there if the majority of 
developers *wanted* it to. Who am I (or any of us) to go against the 
broader will of them? All hail vapier, and all that.

Additionally it remains an elected position with a limited term, so 
really it's completely different because there are fairly short-term 
consequences for actions (or lack thereof).

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 963 bytes --]

On 18:31 Mon 17 Nov     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> When a member of the council resigns mid term, advertise the post and 
> solicit applictions from the developer pool. The remaining council can 
> then appoint an applicant for the remander of the term.

I actually like the halfway position of optionally appointing the 
next-ranking person from the elections (above "nobody" of course) or 
electing a new person.

The delay is a bit annoying though. I don't really see any reason that 
it needs to be longer than 1 week for nomination and another for voting.

> While I'm reforming the council, I would like to see the term extended 
> to two years with only half the seats being contested each year.
> The important thing here is to prevent loss of continuity.

I agree with this and have thought about it before. Thanks for proposing 
it!

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Roy Bamford]

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

On 2008.11.17 18:31, Roy Bamford wrote:
>
[snip]

All,

Its been pointed out to me that my phrase 

> While I'm reforming the council, ....

Could be interpreted as attempting to interfere in the affairs of the 
Gentoo coucil. I would like to clarify that it was intended as a throw 
away tongue in cheek remark and nothing else.

I would also like to clarify that I made my post as an individual 
developer and not on behalf of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.

[snip]

- -- 
Regards,

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkkh49QACgkQTE4/y7nJvas4lwCg1ovWiqSYs/x6bQ+72zYfYzo6
XQ8AoLjUNNxyEOMzDIxng7yZrnvHjqC+
=hRKR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]

On 21:36 Mon 17 Nov     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> Its been pointed out to me that my phrase 
> 
> > While I'm reforming the council, ....
> 
> Could be interpreted as attempting to interfere in the affairs of the 
> Gentoo coucil. I would like to clarify that it was intended as a throw 
> away tongue in cheek remark and nothing else.
> 
> I would also like to clarify that I made my post as an individual 
> developer and not on behalf of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.

In response, I would like to ask the pointer-outer to calm down. Nobody 
has any interest in attaching disclaimers like this to all their emails.

It should be apparent that all devs speaks for themselves as Gentoo 
developers unless specifically saying otherwise. If it's not, consider 
it so now.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

[gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Torsten Veller]

* Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:
> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov     , Torsten Veller wrote:
> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
> > |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
> > |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
> > |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
> > |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
> > |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
> > |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
> > |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
> >     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
> > 
> > So your options are:
> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
> > - Follow the rules.
> 
> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for 
> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of 
> blindly followed.

That looks like a topic for today's council meeting, doesn't it?

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1437 bytes --]

On 15:19 Thu 20 Nov     , Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:
> > On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov     , Torsten Veller wrote:
> > > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
> > > |   irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
> > > |   the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
> > > |   position.  If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
> > > |   forth.  If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
> > > |   person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
> > > |   elections still elect a full group.  If the Council does not accept that
> > > |   person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
> > >     <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
> > > 
> > > So your options are:
> > > - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
> > > - Follow the rules.
> > 
> > Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for 
> > Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of 
> > blindly followed.
> 
> That looks like a topic for today's council meeting, doesn't it?

It sure does. Thanks for making that explicitly clear, Torsten!

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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