[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1274 bytes --]

On 2013.07.21 15:30, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 
> Hello everybody, 
> 
[snip]
> - vote for holding meetings every 2nd Tuesday of the month at 2000 
> UTC
> (or 
> 1900 UTC depending on daylight savings)

In any timezone in particular?


[snip]
> 1: "the open floor is the mailing list
> discussion", 
> i.e. no open floor during the meeting anymore

The open floor is a part of the openness and approachability of the 
council.  Its 60 seconds well spent, even if nobody says anything.


> - vote on meeting format 2: "shift council votes to mail instead of
> IRC"

Please keep voting in public.  Its good for accountability.
If not in IRC, find a way to publish who voted and now.
Council do not get a secret ballot.

[snip]
> - general discussion on the introduction of a "Bikeshed of the month" 
> (basically the plan to tidy off one unresolved mailing list 
> discussion
> each 
> month)

Ok, so what colour should it be?
[with apologies to Douglas Adams]

[snip]

> 
> Best, 
> Andreas
> 
> -- 
> Andreas K. Huettel
> Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde)
> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> http://www.akhuettel.de/
> 


-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> - vote for holding meetings every 2nd Tuesday of the month at 2000
>> UTC
>> (or
>> 1900 UTC depending on daylight savings)
>
> In any timezone in particular?
>

Don't care much, but agree we should pick one.

>
> The open floor is a part of the openness and approachability of the
> council.  Its 60 seconds well spent, even if nobody says anything.

The concern that was raised was that when it does get used it is rare
for anything to get accomplished.  The desire is to have issues raised
and debated on the lists first.

I don't have a big problem with open floor - I just think it is a bit
of a waste of time.  If somebody wants to raise an issue they need
only ask.

>> - vote on meeting format 2: "shift council votes to mail instead of
>> IRC"
>
> Please keep voting in public.  Its good for accountability.
> If not in IRC, find a way to publish who voted and now.
> Council do not get a secret ballot.

Agreed.  I don't think the intent of that item was ever to REPLACE
in-person voting with email.  I think the intent was to allow for it
so that when a critical issue comes up a week after the agenda is
already set that everybody doesn't have to wait 5 weeks for the
following council meeting.  It seems really odd to have a 100-post
flamewar with no immediate action, and then to dredge up the topic a
month later and vote, and then have another 100-post flameware to talk
about the outcome.  I don't think we need off-the-cuff decisions, but
if a topic is ripe for a decision we should have a way to actually
take care of it.

Public debate and votes only make sense.  Bugs might be a useful way
to record this (much as is done with the trustees).

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 07/22/2013 05:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> - vote for holding meetings every 2nd Tuesday of the month at 2000
>>> UTC
>>> (or
>>> 1900 UTC depending on daylight savings)
>>
>> In any timezone in particular?
>>
> 
> Don't care much, but agree we should pick one.
> 
>>
>> The open floor is a part of the openness and approachability of the
>> council.  Its 60 seconds well spent, even if nobody says anything.
> 
> The concern that was raised was that when it does get used it is rare
> for anything to get accomplished.  The desire is to have issues raised
> and debated on the lists first.
> 
> I don't have a big problem with open floor - I just think it is a bit
> of a waste of time.  If somebody wants to raise an issue they need
> only ask.
> 
>>> - vote on meeting format 2: "shift council votes to mail instead of
>>> IRC"
>>
>> Please keep voting in public.  Its good for accountability.
>> If not in IRC, find a way to publish who voted and now.
>> Council do not get a secret ballot.
> 
> Agreed.  I don't think the intent of that item was ever to REPLACE
> in-person voting with email.  I think the intent was to allow for it
> so that when a critical issue comes up a week after the agenda is
> already set that everybody doesn't have to wait 5 weeks for the
> following council meeting.  It seems really odd to have a 100-post

The council really doesn't have the ability to just instantly vote on
things outside of a meeting.  The transparency of the body requires
announcements about meetings, and their topics, with a reasonable amount
of notice.  It simply isn't possible to maintain these things and have
the flexibility to instantly vote on things.  Emergency action can be
taken by many bodies, devrel, userrel, but the council is not expected
to be the "quick fix" for things.

- -Zero

> flamewar with no immediate action, and then to dredge up the topic a
> month later and vote, and then have another 100-post flameware to talk
> about the outcome.  I don't think we need off-the-cuff decisions, but
> if a topic is ripe for a decision we should have a way to actually
> take care of it.
> 
> Public debate and votes only make sense.  Bugs might be a useful way
> to record this (much as is done with the trustees).
> 
> Rich
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=7jYm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The council really doesn't have the ability to just instantly vote on
> things outside of a meeting.  The transparency of the body requires
> announcements about meetings, and their topics, with a reasonable amount
> of notice.  It simply isn't possible to maintain these things and have
> the flexibility to instantly vote on things.  Emergency action can be
> taken by many bodies, devrel, userrel, but the council is not expected
> to be the "quick fix" for things.

I find it interesting that the Trustees, which are a legally regulated
body, can take action between meetings, but we feel that the Council,
which is not a legally regulated body, cannot.  Legally the foundation
can even take action without any of the trustees present (it just
requires a LOT of members to support it).

I'm not suggesting that we should just issue rapid decisions in the
middle of a flamewar.  However, if we feel that all sides of a debate
have spoken we can perhaps announce a pending decision on -dev,
evaluate any responses, and then vote.  Council members who do not
feel sufficient time has passed to evaluate the situation can vote to
postpone the decision.  In order to pass a majority would still be
needed, so if 2 people vote aye, 3 vote nay, and 2 vote delay, then we
delay until one side or the other obtains a majority (as with any
body, the default is basically no action until there is a majority in
favor).

I don't suggest that this should be the ideal method of operation.  I
just see it as an option.  It wasn't even my idea...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 07/22/2013 07:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> The council really doesn't have the ability to just instantly vote on
>> things outside of a meeting.  The transparency of the body requires
>> announcements about meetings, and their topics, with a reasonable amount
>> of notice.  It simply isn't possible to maintain these things and have
>> the flexibility to instantly vote on things.  Emergency action can be
>> taken by many bodies, devrel, userrel, but the council is not expected
>> to be the "quick fix" for things.
> 
> I find it interesting that the Trustees, which are a legally regulated
> body, can take action between meetings, but we feel that the Council,
> which is not a legally regulated body, cannot.  Legally the foundation
> can even take action without any of the trustees present (it just
> requires a LOT of members to support it).
> 
> I'm not suggesting that we should just issue rapid decisions in the
> middle of a flamewar.  However, if we feel that all sides of a debate
> have spoken we can perhaps announce a pending decision on -dev,
> evaluate any responses, and then vote.  Council members who do not
> feel sufficient time has passed to evaluate the situation can vote to
> postpone the decision.  In order to pass a majority would still be
> needed, so if 2 people vote aye, 3 vote nay, and 2 vote delay, then we
> delay until one side or the other obtains a majority (as with any
> body, the default is basically no action until there is a majority in
> favor).
> 

I think the real difference is that most of the devs don't care what the
foundation does as long as it keeps the lights on around here.  Most of
us, on the other hand, seem to care greatly about the development
process and key decisions around that.  If the trustees need to take
emergency action to keep the lights on I trust them to do the right
thing.  If the council has to take emergency action to allow systemd
units to be added without maintainer approval.... well, you see how
stupid that sounds?

- -Zero

> I don't suggest that this should be the ideal method of operation.  I
> just see it as an option.  It wasn't even my idea...
> 
> Rich
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=NYxW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1371 bytes --]

On 2013.07.22 22:51, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Roy Bamford 
> <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>
[snip]
> >
> > Please keep voting in public.  Its good for accountability.
> > If not in IRC, find a way to publish who voted and now.
> > Council do not get a secret ballot.
> 
> Agreed.  I don't think the intent of that item was ever to REPLACE
> in-person voting with email.  I think the intent was to allow for it
> so that when a critical issue comes up a week after the agenda is
> already set that everybody doesn't have to wait 5 weeks for the
> following council meeting.  It seems really odd to have a 100-post
> flamewar with no immediate action, and then to dredge up the topic a
> month later and vote, and then have another 100-post flameware to 
> talk
> about the outcome.  I don't think we need off-the-cuff decisions, but
> if a topic is ripe for a decision we should have a way to actually
> take care of it.
> 
> Public debate and votes only make sense.  Bugs might be a useful way
> to record this (much as is done with the trustees).
> 
> Rich
> 

Rich,

I'm fine with voting via email when its needed, or even all the time as 
long as the votes are published.

You have addressed my concern. 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 910 bytes --]

On 2013.07.23 01:57, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
[snip]

> I think the real difference [between the foundation and council] is 
> that most of the devs don't care what the
> foundation does as long as it keeps the lights on around here.  Most 
> of us, on the other hand, seem to care greatly about the 
> development
> process and key decisions around that.  If the trustees need to take
> emergency action to keep the lights on I trust them to do the right
> thing.  If the council has to take emergency action to allow systemd
> units to be added without maintainer approval.... well, you see how
> stupid that sounds?
> 
> -Zero
> 
[snip]

Rick,

The council should not be denied the ability to reach decisions 
between meetings for the few times it will actually be needed.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 07/23/2013 03:37 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2013.07.23 01:57, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>> I think the real difference [between the foundation and council] is 
>> that most of the devs don't care what the
>> foundation does as long as it keeps the lights on around here.  Most 
>> of us, on the other hand, seem to care greatly about the 
>> development
>> process and key decisions around that.  If the trustees need to take
>> emergency action to keep the lights on I trust them to do the right
>> thing.  If the council has to take emergency action to allow systemd
>> units to be added without maintainer approval.... well, you see how
>> stupid that sounds?
>>
>> -Zero
>>
> [snip]
> 
> Rick,
> 
> The council should not be denied the ability to reach decisions 
> between meetings for the few times it will actually be needed.
> 

I know of no current rules one way or the other on this topic, that
means the council can and will choose their own path.  If it isn't
abused, people are unlikely to complain.  It's been years and never had
an issue that I know of, so perhaps this is all a waste of bytes.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=4wKL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC

[Steven J. Long]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> Roy Bamford wrote:
> > The open floor is a part of the openness and approachability of the
> > council.  Its 60 seconds well spent, even if nobody says anything.
> 
> The concern that was raised was that when it does get used it is rare
> for anything to get accomplished.  The desire is to have issues raised
> and debated on the lists first.
> 
> I don't have a big problem with open floor - I just think it is a bit
> of a waste of time.  If somebody wants to raise an issue they need
> only ask.

It's the "only ask" bit that isn't so easy: emailing someone you don't know, or
raising a bug when you're used to it, or are unsure what kind of response you'll
get, can be tricky; but you may still have something you'd like to bring to the
Council. It's only 60 seconds, and I think it keeps the idea of openness and
approachability in the forefront.
I'd keep it, and expect it to be used for last-minute messages, or reading-up on
late-breaking info on agenda items.

> >> - vote on meeting format 2: "shift council votes to mail instead of
> >> IRC"
> >
> > Please keep voting in public.  Its good for accountability.
> > If not in IRC, find a way to publish who voted and now.
> > Council do not get a secret ballot.
> 
> Agreed.  I don't think the intent of that item was ever to REPLACE
> in-person voting with email.  I think the intent was to allow for it
> so that when a critical issue comes up a week after the agenda is
> already set that everybody doesn't have to wait 5 weeks for the
> following council meeting.  It seems really odd to have a 100-post
> flamewar with no immediate action, and then to dredge up the topic a
> month later and vote, and then have another 100-post flameware to talk
> about the outcome.  I don't think we need off-the-cuff decisions, but
> if a topic is ripe for a decision we should have a way to actually
> take care of it.

That seems to me more a function of the ML, than the decisions themselves. It's
dumb to have a flamewar when the decision has already been made. The only thing
to discuss thereafter is implementation and support for the "minority" be that via
USE-flags, in overlay, or none, ie: forums/-user ML.
If Council members are going to be more involved in the mailing-list, as suggested,
I think that will take a lot of the sting out of it. The discussion will have some of
you involved, so it will be kept less flammable, and there will be more of a feeling
that it is leading to a conclusion, rather than a feeling that it can be kick-started
again at any point, and thus more focus.
 
> Public debate and votes only make sense.  Bugs might be a useful way
> to record this (much as is done with the trustees).

If you do have something that must be done in-between times, then I agree that
bugs are a much more transparent manner of recording it, even if they are locked
for confidential matters.

Regard,
steveL
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)