[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

On Sunday 01 October 2006 02:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
> 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !

due to some council members needing to do lame stuff like study for school, 
this has been pushed back to the 19th
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Ryan Hill]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
> 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !

As in the past these threads have been usually less-than-technical, i wonder
if they should be done on -project?

-- 
                  fonts / wxWindows / gcc-porting / treecleaners
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2988 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 05:30 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
> 
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
> 
Two topics:  The first substantive, the second procedural.

Substantive
----------- 
It is not clear whether or not Gentoo currently has a Code of Conduct or
even if the Council wishes it to.  As you know, we do have a draft of
one, at least, but it is not complete.  Now, that in itself is not a
problem because a final Code requires an iterative process based on
experience and feedback.  If we start with a "final" Code of Conduct, it
will be wrong and subject to revision anyway.

What are not clear are (1) whether the Code of Conduct is in effect; (2)
if so, how we enforce it.  Code of Conduct explicitly calls out a
Proctors group as its executive arm, but previous Council disbanded the
proctors.  So as it stands, if we are serious about a Code of Conduct,
we have to resurrect the proctors or some equivalent enforcement
mechanism.  If we are not serious about having a Code of Conduct, I'd
like Council to explain why not.  (As an aside, I will mention that
devrel does receive complaints on occasion which would properly fall
under the Code of Conduct and proctor control --- either because any
policy violation complained of falls under the Code of Conduct better
than under a devrel problem, or because it is a user/developer issue, or
because by the time it gets to us it's stale, or .... You might get the
idea.)  Anyway, Code of Conduct status needs clarification and action.

I can go on with this at length, but perhaps this reply is not the place
for it.

Procedural
----------

The election for this Council and its aftermath shows that we are not
sure how to handle a situation in which it appears a candidate will not
be able to serve if elected.  As a more extreme example than the one we
faced this time, suppose a candidate resigns or is suspended.  I am
still not sure, for example, who are actually Council members right now.

> Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
> must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
> before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
> before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
> notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.
> 
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

Flames to someplace else, please.  Otherwise, as always, comments,
corrections, additions, etc. welcome.

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Chrissy Fullam]

> From: Ferris McCormick [mailto:fmccor@gentoo.org] 
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October
> 
> Substantive
> -----------
> It is not clear whether or not Gentoo currently has a Code of 
> Conduct or even if the Council wishes it to.  
> (1) whether the Code of Conduct is in effect; 
> (2) if so, how we enforce it.  
> (3) Code of Conduct explicitly calls out a Proctors group as its
> executive arm, but previous Council disbanded the proctors.  
> (4) If we are not serious about having a Code of Conduct, I'd 
> like Council to explain why not.  

I think these are best addressed by Council members and look forward to that
discussion. We can clearly see where Council disbanded the Proctors project
(http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070712-summary.txt),
but it does not answer how the CoC would be enforced or if it should be
rolled into a more general policy, enforced by existing teams (DevRel or
UserRel come to mind.) I'm sure assumptions were made, however, they were
not documented.

> I will mention that devrel does receive complaints on 
> occasion which would properly fall under the Code of Conduct 
> and proctor control --- either because any policy violation 
> complained of falls under the Code of Conduct better than 
> under a devrel problem,

Developer Relations has had no problem, reported or otherwise discussed,
with addressing these issues.

> or because it is a user/developer issue, 

Requests that are user/developer issue in nature should currently either go
through User Relations or Developer Relations, depending on the nature,
though we work together fine.

> or because by the time it gets to us it's stale, 

I'm not aware of any issue escalated to Developer Relations that was stale
by the time we were made aware, though I suppose the term stale is subject
to interpretation.
 
> Anyway, Code of Conduct status needs clarification and action.

It seems that there is some confusion and that would certainly call for
documented clarification.
 
> Procedural
> ----------
> 
> The election for this Council and its aftermath shows that we 
> are not sure how to handle a situation in which it appears a 
> candidate will not be able to serve if elected.  As a more 
> extreme example than the one we faced this time, suppose a 
> candidate resigns or is suspended.  I am still not sure, for 
> example, who are actually Council members right now.

The current council is located on the Council page.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

Flameeyes did send an email, that vapier resent for those who didn't get it,
where flameeyes agreed that jokey would be his proxy while he focused on
getting better and getting back to Gentoo work.

In the past we have had Council members leave and be replaced, though I
don't see the policy for that. Perhaps that should be included in the
discussion of what to do when a Council member, even if they have a proxy,
is away for an extended period or undetermined period of time.

Maybe I've shed some insight, maybe I've confused some of you more, however
I think these are good topics for discussion in the upcoming Council
meeting.

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Duncan]

"Chrissy Fullam" <musikc@gentoo.org> posted
800B72070D0242638ECF9900D0D3C847@draco2, excerpted below, on  Mon, 01 Oct
2007 07:33:54 -0700:

> Flameeyes did send an email, that vapier resent for those who didn't get
> it, where flameeyes agreed that jokey would be his proxy while he
> focused on getting better and getting back to Gentoo work.

I didn't see that; maybe it ended up on core?  I had been wondering about 
that myself, but figured I'd find out eventually.

> In the past we have had Council members leave and be replaced, though I
> don't see the policy for that. Perhaps that should be included in the
> discussion of what to do when a Council member, even if they have a
> proxy, is away for an extended period or undetermined period of time.

I had thought the resign/leave/whatever procedure was well laid out -- 
the person next in elective order (the one that "just missed", so to 
speak) got the spot.  There had been some debate as to a cutoff, since 
(assuming a reasonably larger group of candidates than spots) at some 
point the ranking can be said to be voting /against/ a particular 
candidate, likely by the last one, anyway, but to my knowledge nothing 
ever came of said discussion, and it continues down the list in order to 
the last candidate, if necessary.

The question here was that nobody knew how long he'd be out, or whether 
he intended trying to participate from his hospital bed if necessary. 
Events had moved fast enough that I don't believe a proxy had been 
declared initially, but luckily, it would seem Flameeyes was at least 
able to take care of that.

Re the larger question, I see two possibilities, should someone either 
simply disappear, or as in this case, be suddenly but temporarily 
incapacitated.  (1) Extend the above mechanism a bit further to 
specifically include such "temporary" activation.  (2) Have council 
candidates declare a proxy as they are running.  For those familiar with 
it, this would be similar to the US Vice President's position, only at a 
legislative as opposed to executive level.

The current problem with (1) is that lacking the explicitly documented 
temporary procedure, it could look like an effort to permanently depose 
the council member, and at least in theory, there'd be a question of 
who's the legitimate council member when the disabled member returns due 
to there being no documented procedure for a temporary replacement if a 
proxy wasn't declared.

The problem with (2) is twofold, one current/temporary, one longer term.  
The temporary/trivial issue is that such wasn't done this time, so if we 
go that way, we simply have to get every member's proxy declaration on 
record.  The longer term issue is that it then sort of conflicts with the 
above permanent replacement mechanism.  Arguably, if the two effectively 
ran as a team from the beginning, then the current permanent replacement 
mechanism is no longer needed except as an ultimate fallback in case the 
"VP" is taken out of commission without a new one yet being declared.  
There's also the practical matter of then deciding whether a "VP" 
candidate can also be running on their own and if they get elected too, 
what then? Take /their/ VP? Move to the fallback in-elected-order 
replacement?

One simple way to handle it would be to do away with the declared proxy
thing entirely, and simply make it a policy that the next two (or 
whatever value of X) runners-up on the council list should be present at 
every meeting as well.  They'd be able to take place in pre-vote 
discussion, but their votes wouldn't count unless one of the full members 
was missing.  That way, it wouldn't matter why, and there'd be a single 
replacement mechanism for both temporary and permanent replacement.  The 
biggest difference vs. the existing system would be that a member chosen 
proxy is more likely to share their views than the next runner-up, but it 
would eliminate what in effect is two different mechanisms now, replacing 
the temporary proxy mechanism with a more consistent mechanism that works 
the same regardless of whether it's temporary or permanent.  The general 
effect would be that if a council member knew their views differed from 
the runner-up in an area to be discussed, there'd be stronger motivation 
to make it to the meeting. =8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 957 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 22:12 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> I had thought the resign/leave/whatever procedure was well laid out -- 
> the person next in elective order (the one that "just missed", so to 
> speak) got the spot.  There had been some debate as to a cutoff, since 
> (assuming a reasonably larger group of candidates than spots) at some 
> point the ranking can be said to be voting /against/ a particular 
> candidate, likely by the last one, anyway, but to my knowledge nothing 
> ever came of said discussion, and it continues down the list in order to 
> the last candidate, if necessary.

The next person is only accepted if the entire remaining Council
unanimously accepts the person.  This really is there to allow a
rejection to keep us from going "in the red" on our candidates.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> posted
1191285481.8789.29.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org, excerpted below, on  Mon,
01 Oct 2007 17:38:01 -0700:

> The next person is only accepted if the entire remaining Council
> unanimously accepts the person.  This really is there to allow a
> rejection to keep us from going "in the red" on our candidates.

Yes.  Thanks. I saw your reply after I wrote mine and remembered that, 
but thanks for following up here anyway, just in case anyone had any 
doubts.  =8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Hi.

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
> 
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
> 

I would also like to raise two procedural issues that have resulted from
this council's election process and that I feel need to be resolved in
the beginning of its term:

1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council
meeting in September. Will this council have 11 meetings or will its
term end in September of next year?

2. Regardless of the decision about the above, we should define a clear
schedule for the council's election to ensure that the previous issue
doesn't happen anymore. Given that we have a 1 month election period for
the council, preceded by a 15 day(?) nomination period, that means that
the election process must start before the last meeting of the existing
council. So, if the election were to be held during August, the
nomination should start on July 15th. I propose the election officials
be chosen at the same date - so as not to delay the process.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHAWx6cAWygvVEyAIRAtSOAJwNxL6eXTjP1+N3sO0e2gkoBBlIlgCcDP0k
ISnNMMhCm+4uH5atSxQo4kc=
=h/r2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1562 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:54 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> 1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council
> meeting in September. Will this council have 11 meetings or will its
> term end in September of next year?

There's no need for us to be so strict.  I see no reason why the new
Council can't have their full year.  In fact, I'm so confident in it
being all fair to give them a full year that I propose we just accept it
and not bother discussing it further.  ;]  The previous 2 Councils had
their 12 meetings, why shouldn't this one?

> 2. Regardless of the decision about the above, we should define a clear
> schedule for the council's election to ensure that the previous issue
> doesn't happen anymore. Given that we have a 1 month election period for
> the council, preceded by a 15 day(?) nomination period, that means that
> the election process must start before the last meeting of the existing
> council. So, if the election were to be held during August, the
> nomination should start on July 15th. I propose the election officials
> be chosen at the same date - so as not to delay the process.

Let's assume that the new Council will preside from October through
September.  This would have elections done by September 30th, and
nominations starting on August 1st, as we usually do 1 month for
nominations and one month for voting.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:54 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> 1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council
>> meeting in September. Will this council have 11 meetings or will its
>> term end in September of next year?
> 
> There's no need for us to be so strict.  I see no reason why the new
> Council can't have their full year.  In fact, I'm so confident in it
> being all fair to give them a full year that I propose we just accept it
> and not bother discussing it further.  ;]  The previous 2 Councils had
> their 12 meetings, why shouldn't this one?
> 
>> 2. Regardless of the decision about the above, we should define a clear
>> schedule for the council's election to ensure that the previous issue
>> doesn't happen anymore. Given that we have a 1 month election period for
>> the council, preceded by a 15 day(?) nomination period, that means that
>> the election process must start before the last meeting of the existing
>> council. So, if the election were to be held during August, the
>> nomination should start on July 15th. I propose the election officials
>> be chosen at the same date - so as not to delay the process.
> 
> Let's assume that the new Council will preside from October through
> September.  This would have elections done by September 30th, and
> nominations starting on August 1st, as we usually do 1 month for
> nominations and one month for voting.
> 

I agree with you on both points.
However, the council still needs to "approve" it as it is a "change of
policy" and so that no one has any doubts / objections later.
I still insist that the election officials should be selected as soon as
the nomination period starts to avoid any delays on the voting - we
should never again enter an election without having election officials.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHAagscAWygvVEyAIRAgJCAJ9y4V+dGWSEK9lNalPLffYvbnuYKQCgmpKt
KOvj/kD0oDUn1zNVKSZm4WI=
=LZdm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Steve Long]

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:54 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>> 1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council
>>> meeting in September. Will this council have 11 meetings or will its
>>> term end in September of next year?
>> 
>> There's no need for us to be so strict.  I see no reason why the new
>> Council can't have their full year.  In fact, I'm so confident in it
>> being all fair to give them a full year that I propose we just accept it
>> and not bother discussing it further.  ;]  The previous 2 Councils had
>> their 12 meetings, why shouldn't this one?
>> 
>>> 2. Regardless of the decision about the above, we should define a clear
>>> schedule for the council's election to ensure that the previous issue
>>> doesn't happen anymore. Given that we have a 1 month election period for
>>> the council, preceded by a 15 day(?) nomination period, that means that
>>> the election process must start before the last meeting of the existing
>>> council. So, if the election were to be held during August, the
>>> nomination should start on July 15th. I propose the election officials
>>> be chosen at the same date - so as not to delay the process.
>> 
>> Let's assume that the new Council will preside from October through
>> September.  This would have elections done by September 30th, and
>> nominations starting on August 1st, as we usually do 1 month for
>> nominations and one month for voting.
>> 
> 
> I agree with you on both points.
++
> However, the council still needs to "approve" it as it is a "change of
> policy" and so that no one has any doubts / objections later.
> I still insist that the election officials should be selected as soon as
> the nomination period starts to avoid any delays on the voting - we
> should never again enter an election without having election officials.
> 
Agreed, as it leaves Gentoo without a Council for a month, and you could end
up with no consistency at all viz date of elections. Stating that the
officials must be selected before the nomination process can be started,
and that the same deadline applies (one month of nominations, one of
voting) seems like good planning. Might as well get the whole process
sorted with one vote and move on.

I also concur with whoever said Council meeting notifications should be
discussed on project (maybe a reply-to project for the notification if it
needs to go to dev to ensure everyone sees it) since the discussion is
rarely about technical stuff, despite that being most of the work which the
Council does. Even for technical matters, the discussions i have seen at
least on dev about Council decisions, have always been contentious and
veered off into non-technical aspects (which is probably why they're on the
Council agenda in the first place.)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for October

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]

On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Steve Long wrote:
> Agreed, as it leaves Gentoo without a Council for a month, and you could
> end up with no consistency at all viz date of elections. Stating that the
> officials must be selected before the nomination process can be started,
> and that the same deadline applies (one month of nominations, one of
> voting) seems like good planning. Might as well get the whole process
> sorted with one vote and move on.

this was all cleared up the last meeting

> I also concur with whoever said Council meeting notifications should be
> discussed on project (maybe a reply-to project for the notification if it
> needs to go to dev to ensure everyone sees it) since the discussion is
> rarely about technical stuff, despite that being most of the work which the
> Council does. Even for technical matters, the discussions i have seen at
> least on dev about Council decisions, have always been contentious and
> veered off into non-technical aspects (which is probably why they're on the
> Council agenda in the first place.)

no.  the point of the notice was that so people who were trying to get 
technical standards passed did not forget about the timeline of doing so.  
i'll see about duplicating the notice to -project though.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]