public inbox for gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>
To: Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Cc: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org>, gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:32:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090729013215.GA16741@comet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1248705966.6516.43.camel@localhost>

On 07:46 Mon 27 Jul     , Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 19:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 23:54 Fri 24 Jul     , Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > > The log and summary of Monday's council meeting (July 20th 2009) are
> > > now available on the council project page at:
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
> > 
> > 3. GLEP 39
> > 
> >   3.1. Can the council decide on the process of voting amendments to GLEP 39
> >   without an all-developers vote?
> >   > No: betelgeuse, dertobi123, solar, ulm.
> >   > Yes: calchan, leio.
> > 
> > 
> > I'd like some clarification here. GLEP 39 has already been amended by 
> > the council [1]. Are you declaring those modifications illegal and thus 
> > reverted? If so, this is retroactive because it changes the past and 
> > removes powers that were assumed by previous councils. Are you voting to 
> > remove powers the council previously had? If so, isn't that in itself an 
> > amendment of GLEP 39?
> > 
> > 1. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
> 
> My personal take on it. Is rather that we mostly all agree the council
> does not have the power to modify GLEP-39 as is. If the previous
> councils altered GLEP-39 and there are no challenges to it, then I don't
> think the existing one is going to revert those changes (more so if we
> admit that the existing one should leave it alone) 

Here's my take on things. I think that changes to GLEP 39 that "fix" it 
are fine (in other words, amendments). Most developers aren't lawyers 
looking for every little loophole, they just vote on the basic model 
they want; so the council should respect that by making that basic model 
as good as it can be.

But switching to a different governance model should get a global vote 
by all developers -- not because it's required to, but out of a basic 
respect for our developers and a desire to run Gentoo in a way that 
people want it run.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

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



      parent reply	other threads:[~2009-07-29  1:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-25  5:54 [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009 Denis Dupeyron
2009-07-27  2:06 ` Donnie Berkholz
2009-07-27 14:46   ` Ned Ludd
2009-07-27 18:56     ` Petteri Räty
2009-07-29  1:32     ` Donnie Berkholz [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090729013215.GA16741@comet \
    --to=dberkholz@gentoo.org \
    --cc=calchan@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org \
    --cc=solar@gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox