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 1ML3Gm-0005uT-Ej for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:54:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E071E0563; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.140]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B6AE0563 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ML3FR-00046c-IP for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:53:21 +0000 Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:53:15 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20090628221421.1c9f82c7@anaconda.krait.us> (from fmccor@gentoo.org on Sun Jun 28 23:14:21 2009) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.0 Message-Id: <1246229600.3656.5@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost01-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: 9e7eda70-6a0a-49ce-a019-a9184fabc223 X-Archives-Hash: 15f054ab6d11aeee21bbd8aa00385a6b -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.06.28 23:14, Ferris McCormick wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100 > Roy Bamford wrote: >=20 [snip] > > What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by=20 > > entirely by non gentoo developer proxies? > > Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel > > bound=20 > > by decisions that such a meeting reached? > >=20 >=20 > Currently, yes. >=20 > > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so > it=20 > > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think. > >=20 > It's worse than that. I think 'common sense' is subjective and thus > not a useful method of interpretation. Even if one disagrees with > that > statement, 'common sense' is certainly cultural (do you suppose > common > sense in N. Korea is the same as common sense in S. Korea? I don't > think so at all.). So, 'common sense' for Gentoo still cannot be all > that useful a method of interpretation, because Gentoo most certainly > is multi-cultural. >=20 > > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions > > made on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non=20 > > developers making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above=20 > > with that liability in mind. > >=20 > It's not that bad. as long as council meets every two weeks, any > decision can be undone within 2 weeks (and council can always hold a > special session. Although under your 'what if' scenario, we have a > council which does not take its responsibilities very seriously.) > > Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world > >=20 > I'm sure we all have different views of the world. But I generally > agree with what you have written here, I think. You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case=20 exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the=20 council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a=20 decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go=20 there. I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council=20 does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real=20 life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed=20 proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of=20 council members who may be proxied at any single meeting. =20 As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether. We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council=20 members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that=20 does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the=20 council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that=20 decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers. =20 - --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpH9GAACgkQTE4/y7nJvavFPwCguehKyVF6Ep294VWSHB14Dlq/ mKIAmwWe9bHlEHwYayljnsisUW8p3VsK =3DNpgw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----