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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-36431-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1MBwXo-0005Px-Qz
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:54:41 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E07DAE05D0;
Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:54:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E14AE05D0
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:54:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so219312bwz.34
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:54:38 -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:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=4VzPIoLlCKum0m3CxA89xf4pFp2K8+EUOyjZq/CzlHI=;
b=dv6Spi+faeEnu9TXyvQ3MF3EwXVRYIfceT+UsbEP/YWqtthNIr4DORA8DiKfHw5tgF
rPv1sqIgygMj+Fu40tfxjGAmVJ7BRsFnvJj5uzz4YkvnNhI51bb5hVUhUyYRYnn6y8XV
eZndneupkDItjPHq78xXik0U0h0RA+6SLjTYk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
b=Bk2Rs0328SQ69QuZibNUYn2aBpuYMUmPfIwwcjSmAqjA/UezTxgYrv/BhNk/KDWfQQ
sibvU6paUEfnGHm1vI9uJlSOuU128EmkoiaMtnOMylbq4yBlGzYoam/xvRkm20V/btwa
2jM7RFQm4U+4QbVRl9jeHmtleskS5x+yV9wFU=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: p.jaroszynski@gmail.com
Received: by 10.204.62.68 with SMTP id w4mr1214043bkh.93.1244058876124; Wed,
03 Jun 2009 12:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <eafa4c130906012115h73e9769ar89888e03d2bb54c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eafa4c130906012115h73e9769ar89888e03d2bb54c0@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Piotr_Jaroszy=C5=84ski?= <peper@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:54:16 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d5d74e5ed21095cf
Message-ID: <d77765540906031254l49dc9842w575f495be62325f1@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Jun 11th, 2009 Council Meeting Format
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: a044c505-bfd8-46aa-a27e-4723e16ee183
X-Archives-Hash: 990cee045466dfac807a65e66265d777
2009/6/2 Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>:
> All,
>
> The current council meetings have gotten completely out of hand for
> weeks meetings have become nothing more then a continuation of the
> senseless bicker-fest that have become the e-mail threads on GLEP54,
> GLEP55, and EAPI-3 without any real progress or sense coming of them.
> It's taken me a little bit to step up and put a stop to it but I fully
> intend on putting a stop to it. The point of the council meetings is
> to bring up a topic and decide on its merits whether it should be
> brought into the Gentoo Project or not. I quote from the first line of
> the Gentoo Council website:
I am the author of both mentioned GLEPs but I don't feel too guilty
about that. Council had every opportunity to decide upon them , one
way or another, or state clearly that they don't like this or that.
Instead, there has been a pointless discussion each time (4c comes to
mind here). Imho, council should be less afraid to make difficult
decisions.
> "The elected Gentoo Council decides on global issues and policies that
> affect multiple projects in Gentoo."
>
> We have all collectively failed the Gentoo Project since we have not
> been doing this for the past several weeks. I propose the following
> changes be instituted before the meeting and happen through the
> meeting:
>
> 1) Agenda Topics are posted to the appropriate mailing lists at a
> MINIMUM 7 days prior to the meeting. (That means the agenda must be
> formed by this Thursday).
> 1a) Any changes to the agenda should be ACK'd by the council members
> (off list via the council alias). Changes can not occur less than 48
> hours from the meeting.
Sounds good, but I would still allow some flexibility even during the
meeting if no-one objects.
> 2) The #gentoo-council channel become moderated as we had discussed
> several times in the past.
> 2a) Topics will be brought up and people wishing to address the
> council and the developer body at large should speak to the day's
> appointed moderator. We can take turns or I can do it (maybe it'll
> keep my head from banging against the keyboard as it has in the past
> watching the various non-council members argue completely non-agenda
> items back and forth).
> 2b) Requests are made in tells and honored in turn. The moderator will
> announce to the channel who wishes to speak and the order they are in
> and will efficiently work through the list. If you can not remain on
> topic, you will lose your voice.
I wouldn't be so strict here, use it as last resort.
> 3) Once discussion on the topic has concluded, the council members
> will vote on the actions requested by the developer body. That does
> not mean it is time for council members to concoct an entirely new
> plan by the seat of their pants... which leads me to the next topic.
++
> 4) Council members will now be expected to ACK the agenda on the
> appropriate mailing lists at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If
> you can't, let the council know. You should be able to do this without
> relying on your proxy, but your proxy may do this for you as well if
> you have an extended away.
> 4a) Failure to ACK the agenda will be noted on the meeting minutes.
> 4b) Council members will be expected to formulate their thoughts in
> reply to the agenda items and to research the discussion they wish to
> have on the mailing list PRIOR to the meeting and not fly by the seat
> of their pants.
> 4c) "The first I heard of this and I need 4 weeks to research this."
> or any variation of the quoted statement is no longer a valid
> statement. The point of the meeting is to weigh and debate the items
> before us now. Do your research PRIOR to the meeting, not during.
4c) is the most important imho.
Also, I think meetings shouldn't be limited to 1 hour. I would move
the limit to at least 2 hours. Even if the process is improved, 1 hour
is just not enough.
--=20
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszy=C5=84ski