[gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009

[gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009

[Denis Dupeyron]

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/

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009

[Ned Ludd]

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) 

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --]

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) 
> 

I also think that we were voting about how GLEP 39 is as it currently
stands.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 261 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009

[Donnie Berkholz]

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