From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MSCRu-0008QD-4l for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:07:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AE90E03FD; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BD0E03FD for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:07:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D58766710 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:07:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZlkvqxLj3Z+Q for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (ey-out-1920.google.com [74.125.78.146]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C7D6651B for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so329295eyb.6 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PFax4mn+gIQnCTh1EpMDxKx+6JM5v6q+1Bdhy1ipIX8=; b=u9oGuFF3WsjZWqkKUrY6rXutxT4MRI6iALaVspOoWTgOPAsWC4fWVVEdGL2LmCysvy 088YSj8Uspewv2LSp7xATRZ5y1sqiBNR6cHsabDGEvRv+izYQBzs7KVxVwdJl6GKp864 PBMFw8gS83QPlYjvoSw8+icYDtKExLL0HQiw8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Tt18rbM0vRFbMFUjkCfBxSxS0n1zXvGtPbh/J+SBuZmZpUHa2Rdp2IUttFfMjMNgbw LQHg+wTTRPClR02NsEcy9G+Yg6YW/ANJG6D8p2vYRcc6zwEIHUsvWHPrbfTzTY0sFbYd Uaw1IshsYPG517FwMmXQ5y5dVa/WE8n/DTRdc= 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 Sender: denis.dupeyron@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.53.83 with SMTP id f61mr648028wec.33.1247933256146; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1247919700.4215.1@NeddySeagoon> References: <20090714233321.1cb0784f@anaconda.krait.us> <1247919700.4215.1@NeddySeagoon> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:07:36 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3265468a0c0f4926 Message-ID: <7c612fc60907180907q5e99b7cdl3ce9451371baee2d@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Amending GLEP39 From: Denis Dupeyron To: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c4e943d1-9614-479f-bdc4-7d9b0b0afc8a X-Archives-Hash: 37b06662409ca7b5f78a1f0db38fc7d2 Roy, > Gentoo is not a real democracy. The elected council have just had their > mandate created - they have not even met once yet. > Let them use it. > > Most developers won't care. Look at the turnout for the council > election. > > Developers that do care can lobby the council prior to any vote then > council can vote taking into account any lobbying. > > Lets not pretend that we can keep everyone happy - we are all wise > enough to know thats not true, so lets not even try and lets not put > any more effort into fixing the slackers and proxies parts of GLEP 39 > than we really need to. > > The difference is between the mathematical precision of a referendum > and being close enough for all practical purposes. I totally agree with all of this. I proposed the unanimity rule because I know some council members strongly think that any change to GLEP39 requires a vote by all developers. And I figured they might be willing to accept a unanimous council decision instead. Now, if they can be convinced that a super- or simple majority vote is enough then I'm all for it. On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: > The council were elected to look after the engineering side of Gentoo Here's a common misconception I'd like to clear. Nothing in GLEP39 limits the council's responsibility to the engineering side of Gentoo. On the contrary, GLEP39 deals mostly with project management and organization, developer activity, discipline, etc... However, the successive councils slowly shifted to be mostly technical, if not only. I have a theory as to why this happened, but it really doesn't matter. I would very much like to fix that during this term because not only does GLEP39 imply that the council should care about non-technical aspects, but I'm of the opinion that if it doesn't happen we'll be slowly rotting. I will be sending more propositions about this to this list in the coming days/weeks. The first step is deciding how we can amend GLEP39 though. Denis.