[gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

[gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1734 bytes --]

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?
> 
> 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 
> 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4 
> council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the 
> next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots 
> then.

As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a 
constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult 
to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what 
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 
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 
the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion 
publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then 
take all this input into consideration and vote upon 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: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2490 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > 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?

To make sure different views are represented in council's decisions and
to make sure the decisions are well-balanced. This can be partially
accomplished with having, say, 3 council members, of course - but well,
it's 5 to make sure. 

> > I dislike the idea of stretched 2-year terms, instead I prefer having 
> > 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4 
> > council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the 
> > next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots 
> > then.
> 
> As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a 
> constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult 
> to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what 
> makes you think that?

In fact we had a constant influx of new council members constantly in
the past - which did also work somehow (I'd say it wasn't a problem in
the past). With having elections every 6 months we *could* start to
re-fill open slots with the next election (except there are more than ~2
open slots) and therefore won't have to deal with new council members
constantly but only every 6 months.

> > 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 
> generally involves voting for a person rather than a policy.

Yup, "election by all devs"

> Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in 
> the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion 
> publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then 
> take all this input into consideration and vote upon it.

In the past the council iirc didn't vote upon changes to the process of
voting for, size and lengths of terms of the council. (Adding the
_reopen_nominations candidate was something people took part in the
discussion did agree with, but there was no council or developer vote on
that.) It doesn't hurt to cast a vote by all developers on that, but
this vote does legitimate the changes voted upon.

  Tobias

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

On 18:57 Thu 22 Jan     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > 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?
> 
> To make sure different views are represented in council's decisions and
> to make sure the decisions are well-balanced. This can be partially
> accomplished with having, say, 3 council members, of course - but well,
> it's 5 to make sure. 

Listening to different views can also be accomplished by simply having 
an open discussion before making a decision. I don't think there is any 
requirement that these views are reflected in a decision, just that they 
are considered (and perhaps discarded).

-- 
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: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 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?
>> 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 would give the devs the possibility to restrict the council size if
they so want to do.

> 
> Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in 
> the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion 
> publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then 
> take all this input into consideration and vote upon it.
> 

I guess it depends on the scope of the changes. We can always vote
whether we want to hold a general vote on the issue :)

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 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?
>> 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?

Until we decide to change the council/TLP structure (more on that
later), allowing the council to become one individual is not an option -
imho.

>> I dislike the idea of stretched 2-year terms, instead I prefer having 
>> 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4 
>> council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the 
>> next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots 
>> then.
> 
> As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a 
> constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult 
> to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what 
> 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 
> generally involves voting for a person rather than a policy.

We need to create a way to hold referendums - one of the goals of a
gentoo elections project that I keep delaying sending an email to
kick-start.

> Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in 
> the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion 
> publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then 
> take all this input into consideration and vote upon it.

This is something that was touched about when the election for the
current council was decided as a consequence of GLEP 39, but that wasn't
discussed as thoroughly as it should have been.
My opinion is that any rule/decree/... that institutes our
"meta-structure", including the "governing body" (council for now),
should require a new referendum to amend and must not allow the
governing body to "touch it". This rule/decree/... should institute the
bare minimum rules (a minimum number of meetings per year, obligation to
hold public meetings and take input from the dev community, but not to
follow it, etc), but should leave specific organization details for the
council members.

- --
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

iEYEARECAAYFAkl5uyMACgkQcAWygvVEyALqTQCghRviD8vlfUgjI6FnNBZnf8h2
GcUAoIzZmKqWMIUETseHLOT9cBhdWQDx
=oLl1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----