From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LQ3V8-0002II-K9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:37:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DA47E0768; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B10E0768 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (xray.science.oregonstate.edu [128.193.220.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B4964777 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:37:55 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22 Message-ID: <20090122173755.GC20446@comet> References: <20090121233526.GA15870@comet> <20090122000229.GF15870@comet> <1232644991.4164.19.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hYooF8G/hrfVAmum" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1232644991.4164.19.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: bc7197c0-8431-4c8c-bf41-cd5359958bf5 X-Archives-Hash: 171321720a85ae442734c8f375aaf73d --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 18:23 Thu 22 Jan , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Discuss on-list before meeting > > --------------------------------------- > > - Council meta stuff (-council) > > - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? > > - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? >=20 > I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at > least 5 council members *if* developers want to change the size. What is your reasoning for this? > I dislike the idea of stretched 2-year terms, instead I prefer having=20 > 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4=20 > council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the=20 > next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots=20 > then. As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a=20 constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult=20 to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what=20 makes you think that? > Anyways, this is something we can discuss - but as a change to the > voting procedure most likely does change or extend what's written down > in GLEP 39 I'd like to see a election on those changes. I'm assuming you mean a vote by all Gentoo devs, since an election=20 generally involves voting for a person rather than a policy. Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in=20 the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion=20 publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then=20 take all this input into consideration and vote upon it. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkl4rvMACgkQXVaO67S1rtv1/ACcC4mK70QGxnb2kHC0jVxervc1 2h4AoKRA1SrLXCP/JoVar49tmhZIOFUZ =8o+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum--