[gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Doug Goldstein]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to take this time to encourage everyone who can vote in this
year's council elections. This is your chance to affect the technical
development for Gentoo for the coming year and I encourage you to take
it. Voting is easy, just login to your account on dev.gentoo.org and
perform the following steps:

Quick voting helper:
$ votify --new council200906 [1]
$ $(editor) .ballot-council200906 [2]
$ votify --verify council200906 [3]
$ votify --submit council200906 [4]

While I'm not running this year. I encourage people to consider
gentoofan23 (tanderson on IRC). He's done an outstanding job helping
the current council members and without him much of the council's
progress would have stalled.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Denis Dupeyron]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

Thanks for the reminder, Doug.

Make sure to also check everybody's manifesto here:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council-200906-nominees.xml

Denis.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 299 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 311 bytes --]

Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the reminder, Doug.
> 
> Make sure to also check everybody's manifesto here:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council-200906-nominees.xml

Just for the record - i did add my manifesto to the elections page
myself as that somehow got missed.

- Tobias


[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 24. June 2009 17:48:38 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I wanted to take this time to encourage everyone who can vote in this
> year's council elections. This is your chance to affect the technical
> development for Gentoo for the coming year and I encourage you to take
> it.

Cardoe said it very nicely and since he actively encouraged to vote for 
tanderson, I'd like to add a bit...

I think it would be in the best interest of both Exherbo and Gentoo to elect 
gentoofan23, betelgeuse, dev-zero, peper, calchan and dertobi123 to the Gentoo 
Council.

All of them have a good understanding of both Gentoo and Exherbo (no wonder 
with some of them working on Exherbo, too) and would be ideal candidates to 
get the best of both distros and deepen a cooperation and common understanding 
between both. This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting.

While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see 
one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone.

May a great council be elected!

Best regards, Wulf

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Wulf C. Krueger <wk@mailstation.de> wrote:
> between both. This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
> zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting.
>

Sorry to rain on your parade, but with ciaranm's consistent history,
allowing him to participate in Gentoo's discussions itself is a
privilege of patience on the part of the Gentoo community.

Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed
(non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council), and reflects badly on the
candidate in question (dev-zero).


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 590 bytes --]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed
> (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council)

Please point to the rule that says that a non-developer cannot be on
the Council, and please point to the rule that says that a Council
member cannot appoint a non-developer as their proxy. I see no mention
of either in GLEP 39, which only restricts voting of Council members to
developers, and only restricts proxies to not having one person with
multiple votes.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Alistair Bush]

Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Wulf C. Krueger <wk@mailstation.de> wrote:
>> between both. This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
>> zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting.
>>
> 
> Sorry to rain on your parade, but with ciaranm's consistent history,
> allowing him to participate in Gentoo's discussions itself is a
> privilege of patience on the part of the Gentoo community.
> 

I would believe that recent history would show the opposite.  There seem
to be a group of developers at which the mere mention of ciaranm results
in setting them off.  Regardless of the technical merits of a solution
they seem more interested in just derailing anything that might have
anything to do with ciaramn.

I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past.  But recently I haven't see
anything.  I for one hope that this continues and that other members of
the community take a look at themselves before spouting about the evils
of ciaramn.

> Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed
> (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council), and reflects badly on the
> candidate in question (dev-zero).
> 
Not shared by everyone.

> 
> --
> ~Nirbheek Chauhan
> 
> 

[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections

[Duncan]

Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> posted 4A43E30E.4090100@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on  Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:50:22 +1200:

> I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past.  But recently I haven't see
> anything.  I for one hope that this continues and that other members of
> the community take a look at themselves before spouting about the evils
> of ciaramn.

Agreed.

Still, it did raise my eyebrows to see him mentioned as a proxy.  While 
he has a good point that it doesn't seem to be in the rules, IMO it's 
simply too divisive at present.  Maybe in five years or a decade...
now's not the time (again, IMO).

Similarly:

>> While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend
>> to only see one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone.

Being open to cooperation is one thing.  But when it makes a difference, 
Gentoo council members /should/ be primarily concerned with Gentoo. with 
cooperation with others important, but definitely secondary to the well-
being of Gentoo.  After all, it's the /Gentoo/ council, not the 
/community/ council.

Were I voting (I'm not), I'd vote on what I saw as the merits of 
individual members in regard to Gentoo, preferably without regard to 
Exherbo or other community involvement, tho now that it's specifically 
posted, I'd likely count that as a minor negative for all but one, 
choosing one where it'd be a minor positive, as I see no problem with 
having a single person who can present issues for another part of the 
community, but again, it's not the Exherbo council, it's the Gentoo 
council, and IMO it should behave as it's labeled.  Dual allegiances 
aren't a big issue in themselves if they're spread out enough, but 
weighed as heavily toward one external entity as suggested here isn't a 
good thing at all IMO.

But if that's what gets voted in, well, I guess the devs have spoken, as 
I suppose they have if all those candidates now get ranked below 
reopen_nominations.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Andrew D Kirch]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>   
>> Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed
>> (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council)
>>     
>
> Please point to the rule that says that a non-developer cannot be on
> the Council, and please point to the rule that says that a Council
> member cannot appoint a non-developer as their proxy. I see no mention
> of either in GLEP 39, which only restricts voting of Council members to
> developers, and only restricts proxies to not having one person with
> multiple votes.
>
>   
Please be quiet.

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Benny Pedersen]

On Fri, June 26, 2009 03:13, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Please be quiet.

why ?, maillists is imho made to be used in non silent mode else one could aswell argue to close it down

-- 
xpoint

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed
> > (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council)
>
> Please point to the rule that says that a non-developer cannot be on
> the Council, and please point to the rule that says that a Council
> member cannot appoint a non-developer as their proxy. I see no mention
> of either in GLEP 39, which only restricts voting of Council members to
> developers, and only restricts proxies to not having one person with
> multiple votes.
>

Oh so you'll argue semantics now? The spirit of the rule is
excessively clear. No non-gentoo-developer can be a member of council
-- permanent, temporary, or proxy.

If a council member can't find a gentoo developer to be their proxy,
that says a lot about the council member.

In any case, discussing this with you is completely m00t given my past
experiences with discussions with you.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Sorry to rain on your parade, but with ciaranm's consistent history,
> > allowing him to participate in Gentoo's discussions itself is a
> > privilege of patience on the part of the Gentoo community.
> >
>
> I would believe that recent history would show the opposite.

Recent "history" does not change the nature of a person, nor does it
rebuild the bridges they have burnt.

> There seem
> to be a group of developers at which the mere mention of ciaranm results
> in setting them off.

So you expect us to just ignore all his past problems and give him a
fresh start everytime someone mentions him? Do you really expect us to
not take a persons well-known history into account when dealing with
them? This is at best unrealistic and at worst trollish.

> Regardless of the technical merits of a solution
> they seem more interested in just derailing anything that might have
> anything to do with ciaramn.
>

What the hell does this discussion have to do with technical merits of
any solution? Please don't attempt a validity by association[1].

> I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past.  But recently I haven't see
> anything.

Having witnessed Ciaran playing nice for a while before getting back
to vitriolic attacks several times before, I take all this with a
record-shatteringly-massive grain of salt.

I would like to see good behavior for much longer before bringing my
guard down. I keep an open and forgiving mind, but not so much that my
brains fall out and get eaten by zombies.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:50:22 +1200
Alistair Bush <ali_bush@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I would believe that recent history would show the opposite.  There
> seem to be a group of developers at which the mere mention of ciaranm
> results in setting them off.  Regardless of the technical merits of a
> solution they seem more interested in just derailing anything that
> might have anything to do with ciaramn.

Correct. When he was booted off the project the last time, I breathed
again and picked up my waning interest in Gentoo and it has thrived
since.

> I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past.  But recently I haven't
> see anything.  I for one hope that this continues and that other
> members of the community take a look at themselves before spouting
> about the evils of ciaramn.

I have come to know Ciaran as an elitist little twerp and he is
one of a few people in the world I wouldn't want to meet, or wouldn't
know what I'd do to if I did meet him. It's really that bad, yes. The
man brought it all on himself for the nasty things he did in the past
and should publicly apologise for each and every time he offended
someone in a web-e-vised 20 hour sorry-a-thon before[1] he is allowed
back to do more than voice his opinion on Gentoo-held media.


Thank you kindly,
     jer



[1] Which isn't going to happen.

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1697 bytes --]

Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530
>> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed
>>> (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council)
>> Please point to the rule that says that a non-developer cannot be on
>> the Council, and please point to the rule that says that a Council
>> member cannot appoint a non-developer as their proxy. I see no mention
>> of either in GLEP 39, which only restricts voting of Council members to
>> developers, and only restricts proxies to not having one person with
>> multiple votes.
>>
> 
> Oh so you'll argue semantics now? The spirit of the rule is
> excessively clear. No non-gentoo-developer can be a member of council
> -- permanent, temporary, or proxy.
> 
> If a council member can't find a gentoo developer to be their proxy,
> that says a lot about the council member.
> 
> In any case, discussing this with you is completely m00t given my past
> experiences with discussions with you.
> 
> 
> --
> ~Nirbheek Chauhan
> 

Actually, please read GLEP 39 and you will see that it doesn't restrict
council members to developers only. Basically under the current rules I
think it's technically right to be proxied by anyone. If you don't think
being proxied by non developers is wise, don't vote for those council
members next time. If we want to restrict the council to developers
only, we should think about modifying GLEP 39 (which should be done via
a vote among developers as that's they way 39 was agreed upon).

Regards,
Petteri


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 555 bytes --]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:04:14 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Oh so you'll argue semantics now? The spirit of the rule is
> excessively clear. No non-gentoo-developer can be a member of council
> -- permanent, temporary, or proxy.

The spirit and the letter of the rules are clear: the electorate can
vote in whoever they want, and council members can appoint whoever they
want so long as no-one has multiple votes at any given meaning. GLEP 39
is very clear and explicit about all the restrictions.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ben de Groot]

Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> I think it would be in the best interest of both Exherbo and Gentoo to elect 
> [...] to the Gentoo Council.

I would think the only thing that matters is the best interest of
Gentoo. This is after all the _Gentoo_ Council we're speaking of, not a
body that is concerned with non-Gentoo matters.

> All of them [...] would be ideal candidates to 
> get the best of both distros and deepen a cooperation and common understanding 
> between both.

In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to
ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that
have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels.

> This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
> zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting.

To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been booted
from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that position.

> While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see 
> one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone.

I would hope so. The people we elect to the council should concentrate
on Gentoo, otherwise they'd have a conflict of interest.

Cheers,
Ben

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot<yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been booted
> from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
> disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that position.

As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a
non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to Tiziano,
and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his
proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to
experiment. And experiments sometimes succeed, or sometimes they fail,
but they often teach you something. I wouldn't be as fast as you to
remove Tiziano from the list of people I'd vote for.

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Joe Peterson]

Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to
> experiment. And experiments sometimes succeed, or sometimes they fail,

Well, experimentation is OK (and I would encourage it for many things),
but I'm not sure I'd agree that experimentally giving someone council
powers for a even one meeting is wise, unless you are very sure that it
will not result in adverse decisions being made.  I'd rather see
experimentation done in other, less risky ways.

For what it's worth, I'd vote to have it codified that council members
and proxies need to be Gentoo devs (or at least a member of the project
in some capacity).  To me, it is a good minimum requirement, at least.

						-Joe

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Alistair Bush]

Ben de Groot wrote:
 > I would think the only thing that matters is the best interest of
> Gentoo. This is after all the _Gentoo_ Council we're speaking of, not a
> body that is concerned with non-Gentoo matters.

++

 > In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to
> ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that
> have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels.

Why silence what you can ignore?  Also Exherbo is the most similar
project we have to compare ourselves too.  If drobbins had ignored
freebsd where would we be now?  We shouldn't ignore anything,  debain,
suse, fedora, etc, etc, etc all have something to contribute.  Ignoring
them because "we" don't like their members will only make Gentoo weaker.
 We should instead be looking at what they have done that we can use to
improve gentoo.  As our closest relative ( of any distro ) having
Council members that have at least a basic understanding of what (and
how) they are attempting to achieve is a good thing.  The same goes for
Sabayon.

> To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been booted
> from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
> disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that position.

I actually look forward to seeing how he goes.

>> While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see 
>> one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone.
> 
> I would hope so. The people we elect to the council should concentrate
> on Gentoo, otherwise they'd have a conflict of interest.

Maybe we should force Council members to disclose their involvement with
other projects?
You never know,  we might have a ubuntu dev on the council :D

Alistair.

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2591 bytes --]

On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 14:46 +0200, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > I think it would be in the best interest of both Exherbo and Gentoo to elect 
> > [...] to the Gentoo Council.
> 
> I would think the only thing that matters is the best interest of
> Gentoo. This is after all the _Gentoo_ Council we're speaking of, not a
> body that is concerned with non-Gentoo matters.
> 
> > All of them [...] would be ideal candidates to 
> > get the best of both distros and deepen a cooperation and common understanding 
> > between both.
> 
> In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to
> ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that
> have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels.

I think this works only if Gentoo can exist in a vacuum.  And in my
opinion it can't.  An exchange of ideas among projects is good, and for
Gentoo I suppose the council is the official driver.  To me, that
implies that council ignore other projects like Exherbo only to the
detriment of Gentoo.

(I believe we already have dual developers for Gentoo/Exherbo, but I
haven't bothered to verify.)
> 
> > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
> > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting.
> 
> To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been booted
> from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
> disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that position.
> 
> > While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see 
> > one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone.
> 
> I would hope so. The people we elect to the council should concentrate
> on Gentoo, otherwise they'd have a conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest?  How so.  And like it or not, as best as I can
tell GLEP39 is the ruling document for council, and it does not require
council members or proxies to be gentoo developers.  It might be
reasonable to require they be members of a gentoo project, but as
someone (Denis?) explained to me, Gentoo project members need not be
developers.  Anyone with something useful to contribute should be able
to, but only developers should have commit access (actually, the
trustees can request limited commit access to any Foundation trustee or
officer, I believe).
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
Flames not required,
Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Richard Freeman]

Ben de Groot wrote:
> 
> In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to
> ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that
> have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels.
> 

Nobody needs to be silenced (unless they're litereally spamming the list 
- as close as cirianm comes to this his posts are at least relevant to 
the topic and even if I sometimes disagree with them and he could 
exercise restraint I don't think he should be banned).  I suspect most 
devs just avoid the drama.

I do echo the sentiment that the Gentoo council should be focused on 
Gentoo.  Sure, nothing wrong with cooperating with other projects and 
learning from them.  Certainly I don't want a not-invented-here 
attitude, and I think paludis has a lot to offer.

However, those who have questioned the wisdom of cirianm as a proxy do 
have a point.  Technical knowledge alone is not the critiera of a 
council member.  One needs to be able to build consensus - not that we 
need to be strangled by consensus, but we can't afford to rule by edict 
either.

I'm happy that everybody seems to be getting along better, but council 
leadership requires maturity, and maturity is reflected by how people 
behave over the long haul.  Cirianm's best bet to get accepted by the 
gentoo devs is to just start working with them - if he works positively 
with enough different people (especially those with different opinions) 
he'll have no trouble gaining their support.  However, that is something 
that can take months or years - not weeks to a few months.  I might be 
willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that is just me.  I'm 
not so sure I'd be eager to have him be a proxy if I were on the 
council.  Sure, I'd be happy to yield my floor time to him if I thought 
he had something worth listening to, but a proxy is more than just a 
platform to talk - any mailing list subscriber already has that.

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 190 bytes --]

Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I suspect most devs just avoid the drama.

++

Less worrying, more working

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm/vim)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Tiziano Müller]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3240 bytes --]

Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot<yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been booted
> > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
> > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that position.
> 
> As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a
> non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to Tiziano,
> and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his
> proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to
> experiment.
Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be a
dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me
this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to accept
him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting.

When I had to choose a proxy I basically went through the list of people
I worked together and from which I know their opinions and they know
mine. That would have been: dertobi123 and maekke, one a council member
already, the other one unavailable at the time I looked for a proxy.
Then there was tanderson who wasn't sure whether he has to proxy for
another council member already and ciaranm who was present in most
meetings, knows my opinion, can distinguish between his opinion and mine
and worked on EAPI-3.

I'm sorry when I offended some council members and other developers with
that decision but guessing from the last discussions on #-council
between Ciaran and other council members I really didn't expect such an
animosity.

For the claim that Exherbo-people undercut Gentoo: I don't care about
what someone is doing in their freetime. I would also accept an Ubuntu
dev, a Red Hat developer, drobbins or even Bill Gates as a council
member if they'd invest enough time in Gentoo.
I personally don't care about Exherbo, I'm neither a dev nor a user and
the same thing goes for Funtoo. If nothing bad happens I will organize
the booth again at the next Open Expo in September (hopefully together
with dertobi123 and maekke), investing my personal time and money again
to show people what Gentoo is about and I will also continue to promote
Gentoo/Prefix at the University (where I'm working on a large
installation on a big server) and I will continue to use Gentoo for an
Embedded Project with hopefully over 3000 deployed systems within the
next two years.

Furthermore I only care partially about someones past. People change all
the time and they deserve more than one chance. If I would show the same
averseness to some devs I had fights with in the past as people do to
Ciaran I couldn't work with them now.

>  And experiments sometimes succeed, or sometimes they fail,
> but they often teach you something. I wouldn't be as fast as you to
> remove Tiziano from the list of people I'd vote for.
Thanks :)


-- 
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
Areas of responsibility:
  Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30

[-- Attachment #1.2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Zhang Le]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

On 11:41 Fri 26 Jun     , Richard Freeman wrote:
> However, those who have questioned the wisdom of cirianm as a proxy do  
> have a point.  Technical knowledge alone is not the critiera of a  
> council member.  One needs to be able to build consensus - not that we  
> need to be strangled by consensus, but we can't afford to rule by edict  
> either.
>
> I'm happy that everybody seems to be getting along better, but council  
> leadership requires maturity, and maturity is reflected by how people  
> behave over the long haul.  Cirianm's best bet to get accepted by the  
> gentoo devs is to just start working with them - if he works positively  
> with enough different people (especially those with different opinions)  
> he'll have no trouble gaining their support.  However, that is something  
> that can take months or years - not weeks to a few months.  I might be  
> willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that is just me.  I'm  
> not so sure I'd be eager to have him be a proxy if I were on the  
> council.  Sure, I'd be happy to yield my floor time to him if I thought  
> he had something worth listening to, but a proxy is more than just a  
> platform to talk - any mailing list subscriber already has that.

Agreed.

-- 
Zhang, Le
Gentoo/Loongson Developer
http://zhangle.is-a-geek.org
0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Roy Bamford]

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

On 2009.06.28 10:00, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot<yngwin@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been
> booted
> > > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
> > > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that
> position.
> > 
> > As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a
> > non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to 
> Tiziano,
> > and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his
> > proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to
> > experiment.
> Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be 
> a
> dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me
> this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to
> accept
> him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting.
> 
[snip]
> -- 
> Tiziano Müller
> Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
> Areas of responsibility:
>   Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
> E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30
> 

Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is 
fatally flawed.  

1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member 
being proxied is never made public. 

2. Its never clear if the proxy is voting as instructed by the council 
member or as they see fit at the time.

What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by 
entirely by non gentoo developer proxies?
Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel bound 
by decisions that such a meeting reached?

Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so it 
doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.

Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions made 
on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non developers 
making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above with that 
liability in mind.

Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpHjtYACgkQTE4/y7nJvavn9gCgt5tw0IaT8GRdh2w0nY+RskZF
H2YAoMgphYWUOp4bVMl8TWp0Qy1nTzjI
=aR8L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Roy Bamford<neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so it
> doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.
>

I would like to make a stand for more usage of common sense and
"wisdom" in interpretation of rules. It more often than not makes for
more sensible and useful decisions.

To this end, I advocate the following TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html

From Donnie's twitter status[1] from a while back, I take it he would
agree as well.

> Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions made
> on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non developers
> making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above with that
> liability in mind.
>

This is an interesting point that I doubt many here would have thought of.


1. http://twitter.com/dberkholz/status/2345098446

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Tiziano Müller]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3764 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2009, 16:40 +0100 schrieb Roy Bamford:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2009.06.28 10:00, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron:
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot<yngwin@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been
> > booted
> > > > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
> > > > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that
> > position.
> > > 
> > > As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a
> > > non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to 
> > Tiziano,
> > > and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his
> > > proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to
> > > experiment.
> > Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be 
> > a
> > dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me
> > this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to
> > accept
> > him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting.
> > 
> [snip]
> > -- 
> > Tiziano Müller
> > Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
> > Areas of responsibility:
> >   Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
> > E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
> > GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30
> > 
> 
> Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is 
> fatally flawed.  

As I stated in at least one mail before (and in countless discussions on
IRC): I'd like to see the proxy-concept being removed since it is flawed
as you point out below and replaced with something like "a council
member may miss N meetings with M of them without prior notice"
And then remove that slacker mark as well and just say: "if you miss
more than those N meetings or miss M meetings without prior notice you
get kicked". And for those who like the slacker mark to see who has
missed a lot of meetings or missed meetings repeatedly we could have a
statistics summary on proj/en/council with the number of missed meetings
per member.

Cheers,
Tiziano

> 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member 
> being proxied is never made public. 
> 
> 2. Its never clear if the proxy is voting as instructed by the council 
> member or as they see fit at the time.
> 
> What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by 
> entirely by non gentoo developer proxies?
> Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel bound 
> by decisions that such a meeting reached?
> 
> Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so it 
> doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.
> 
> Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions made 
> on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non developers 
> making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above with that 
> liability in mind.
> 
> Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world
> 
> - -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Roy Bamford
> (NeddySeagoon) a member of
> gentoo-ops
> forum-mods
> treecleaners
> trustees
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpHjtYACgkQTE4/y7nJvavn9gCgt5tw0IaT8GRdh2w0nY+RskZF
> H2YAoMgphYWUOp4bVMl8TWp0Qy1nTzjI
> =aR8L
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-- 
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
Areas of responsibility:
  Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30

[-- Attachment #1.2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Tiziano Müller]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1573 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2009, 21:35 +0530 schrieb Nirbheek Chauhan:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Roy Bamford<neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so it
> > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.
> >
> 
> I would like to make a stand for more usage of common sense and
> "wisdom" in interpretation of rules. It more often than not makes for
> more sensible and useful decisions.

Well, Gentoo became (or always was) a multi-cultural project and what I
see is that common sense really depends on one's cultural background.
Therefore I'd say it doesn't hurt to just write something down in case
of ambiguity.

> 
> To this end, I advocate the following TED talk:
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
> 
> From Donnie's twitter status[1] from a while back, I take it he would
> agree as well.
> 
> > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions made
> > on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non developers
> > making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above with that
> > liability in mind.
> >
> 
> This is an interesting point that I doubt many here would have thought of.
> 
> 
> 1. http://twitter.com/dberkholz/status/2345098446

-- 
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
Areas of responsibility:
  Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30

[-- Attachment #1.2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[George Prowse]

Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> I think it would be in the best interest of both Exherbo and Gentoo to elect 
> gentoofan23, betelgeuse, dev-zero, peper, calchan and dertobi123 to the Gentoo 
> Council.

Why is Exherbo's interests anything to do with Gentoo's? Does this 
happen with Sabayon or SystemRescueCd or any other Gentoo-based distro?

 > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
 > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council
 > meeting.

If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him to 
speak on the board of a hospital

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[George Prowse]

Alistair Bush wrote:
> 
> As our closest relative ( of any distro ) 

You mean apart from all the other Gentoo based distros?

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100
George Prowse <george.prowse@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
>  > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council
>  > meeting.
> 
> If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him
> to speak on the board of a hospital

Coming from you, George, that's rather rich... Also, I would like to
remind you that the Council's decision was everything to do with the
rules not allowing a non-developer to proxy (a claim which has yet to
be substantiated), and nothing to do with the attempts of a small number
of malcontents that anything involving me, Paludis or Exherbo is so
amazingly evil that it must be entirely ignored.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100
> George Prowse <george.prowse@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
>>  > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council
>>  > meeting.
>>
>> If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him
>> to speak on the board of a hospital
> 
> Coming from you, George, that's rather rich... Also, I would like to
> remind you that the Council's decision was everything to do with the
> rules not allowing a non-developer to proxy (a claim which has yet to
> be substantiated), and nothing to do with the attempts of a small number
> of malcontents that anything involving me, Paludis or Exherbo is so
> amazingly evil that it must be entirely ignored.
> 
I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list will 
endear yourself to everyone.

Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you 
would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 
years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a 
developer again.

Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is the 
wrong way and spending the last 4 years doing the wrong thing means that 
you have done nothing to warrant you being included in not only Gentoo 
but it's heirachy (and this is without mentioning your trolling on the 
lists and your banning from the forums).

If you succeed are you going to invite Patrick and Plasmaroo to join the 
exherbo "council"?

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1709 bytes --]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:46:27 +0100
George Prowse <george.prowse@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list
> will endear yourself to everyone.

Uh, isn't that exactly what you're doing?

> Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you 
> would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 
> years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a 
> developer again.

Why? I'm interested in getting things done, not in jumping through
arbitrary hoops and starting yet another silly Gentoo politics flamewar.

> Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is
> the wrong way and spending the last 4 years doing the wrong thing
> means that you have done nothing to warrant you being included in not
> only Gentoo but it's heirachy (and this is without mentioning your
> trolling on the lists and your banning from the forums).

I'm not trying to get into Gentoo by proxy at all. I shall remind you
that this was Tiziano's request and decision, not mine, and that I was
merely helping Gentoo out by carrying out a request from a Council
member.

> If you succeed are you going to invite Patrick and Plasmaroo to join
> the exherbo "council"?

That's not my decision. I don't have anything to do with the running of
Exherbo. However, if Patrick or Plasmaroo have useful contributions for
Exherbo, I would be happy to ensure that those contributions get
applied.

Again, this is not about me or Exherbo. It's about the Council's
unsubstantiated claim that the rules prohibit a Council member from
selecting a non-developer as a proxy.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:46:27 +0100
> George Prowse <george.prowse@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list
>> will endear yourself to everyone.
> 
> Uh, isn't that exactly what you're doing?

Nope, I never mentioned anything personal about you, in fact I can't 
remember mentioning your name at all.
> 
>> Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you 
>> would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 
>> years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a 
>> developer again.
> 
> Why? I'm interested in getting things done, not in jumping through
> arbitrary hoops and starting yet another silly Gentoo politics flamewar.

You choose to be in these flamewars. As I stated, if you really cared 
then at some time since your exclusion you would have worked on Gentoo 
and kept your nose clean, people would have had no choice but to accept 
you had noting but Gentoo's best interest at heart.
> 
>> Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is
>> the wrong way and spending the last 4 years doing the wrong thing
>> means that you have done nothing to warrant you being included in not
>> only Gentoo but it's heirachy (and this is without mentioning your
>> trolling on the lists and your banning from the forums).
> 
> I'm not trying to get into Gentoo by proxy at all. I shall remind you
> that this was Tiziano's request and decision, not mine, and that I was
> merely helping Gentoo out by carrying out a request from a Council
> member.

You're not stupid, you knew exactly what would happen and you let all 
the flames come instead of being humble and suggesting that it wasn't 
the best idea.
> 
>> If you succeed are you going to invite Patrick and Plasmaroo to join
>> the exherbo "council"?
> 
> That's not my decision. I don't have anything to do with the running of
> Exherbo. However, if Patrick or Plasmaroo have useful contributions for
> Exherbo, I would be happy to ensure that those contributions get
> applied.

Don't take that too literally, it was only meant as an example.
> 
> Again, this is not about me or Exherbo. It's about the Council's
> unsubstantiated claim that the rules prohibit a Council member from
> selecting a non-developer as a proxy.
> 
If you select a non-developer as a proxy then it degrades what it means 
to be a developer. Would you be happy if you local MP got his granny to 
vote in parliament when he was on holiday?

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Tiziano Müller]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1707 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2009, 20:46 +0100 schrieb George Prowse:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100
> > George Prowse <george.prowse@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev-
> >>  > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council
> >>  > meeting.
> >>
> >> If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him
> >> to speak on the board of a hospital
> > 
> > Coming from you, George, that's rather rich... Also, I would like to
> > remind you that the Council's decision was everything to do with the
> > rules not allowing a non-developer to proxy (a claim which has yet to
> > be substantiated), and nothing to do with the attempts of a small number
> > of malcontents that anything involving me, Paludis or Exherbo is so
> > amazingly evil that it must be entirely ignored.
> > 
> I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list will 
> endear yourself to everyone.
> 
> Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you 
> would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 
> years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a 
> developer again.
> 
> Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is the 
> wrong way

Please read my mail at
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_1c0cf45c2d4619441c964163b787a11e.xml
for that.

-- 
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
Areas of responsibility:
  Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30

[-- Attachment #1.2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ferris McCormick]

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

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2009.06.28 10:00, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron:
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot<yngwin@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been
> > booted
> > > > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes
> > > > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that
> > position.
> > > 
> > > As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a
> > > non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to 
> > Tiziano,
> > > and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his
> > > proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to
> > > experiment.
> > Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be 
> > a
> > dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me
> > this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to
> > accept
> > him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting.
> > 
> [snip]
> > -- 
> > Tiziano Müller
> > Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
> > Areas of responsibility:
> >   Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
> > E-Mail   : dev-zero@gentoo.org
> > GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30
> > 
> 
> Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is 
> fatally flawed.  
> 
> 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member 
> being proxied is never made public. 
> 
This is a problem.  Any time a council member requires a proxy, that
should be published immediately (including who the proxy is).  Not
possible for things coming up at the last minute, of course.

> 2. Its never clear if the proxy is voting as instructed by the council 
> member or as they see fit at the time.
> 
> What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by 
> entirely by non gentoo developer proxies?
> Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel bound 
> by decisions that such a meeting reached?
> 

Currently, yes.

> Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so it 
> doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.
> 
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.

> Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions made 
> on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non developers 
> making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above with that 
> liability in mind.
> 
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
> 
I'm sure we all have different views of the world.  But I generally
agree with what you have written here, I think.
> - -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Roy Bamford
> (NeddySeagoon) a member of
> gentoo-ops
> forum-mods
> treecleaners
> trustees
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpHjtYACgkQTE4/y7nJvavn9gCgt5tw0IaT8GRdh2w0nY+RskZF
> H2YAoMgphYWUOp4bVMl8TWp0Qy1nTzjI
> =aR8L
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 

Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpH60gACgkQQa6M3+I///eSvgCeMx/4WsoLHkIRv7DuH5iRl1/z
H4AAoIaOejm13uYxbNcqesyJSKcIh8Ms
=Fm7s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Roy Bamford]

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

On 2009.06.28 23:14, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100
> Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
[snip]

> > What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by 
> > entirely by non gentoo developer proxies?
> > Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel
> > bound 
> > by decisions that such a meeting reached?
> > 
> 
> Currently, yes.
> 
> > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so
> it 
> > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.
> > 
> 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.
> 
> > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions
> > made on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non 
> > developers making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above 
> > with that liability in mind.
> > 
> 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
> > 
> 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 
exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the 
council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a 
decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go 
there.

I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council 
does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real 
life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed 
proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of 
council members who may be proxied at any single meeting.  

As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether.
We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council 
members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that 
does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the 
council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that 
decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers.  

- -- 
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
=Npgw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Dale]

Roy Bamford wrote:
>
>
> You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case
> exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the
> council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a
> decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go
> there.
>
> I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council
> does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real
> life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed
> proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of
> council members who may be proxied at any single meeting.  
>
> As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether.
> We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council
> members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that
> does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the
> council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that
> decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers.  
>

I'm just picking a random message so no fingers being pointed here.

As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask.  Why is that EVERYONE on the
council must be there or have someone there to represent them?  Would
Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? 

I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a
developer.  If it is not that way now, it should be changed.  I been
using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy.  I
would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote.

As a American that sees his own country's government getting out of
control, never count on common sense.  Elected people rarely have any. 
If they do during the election, it disappears after taking their
position.  I think the vast majority of people here have seen that over
the years.

My $0.02 worth.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections

[Duncan]

Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org> posted
20090628221421.1c9f82c7@anaconda.krait.us, excerpted below, on  Sun, 28
Jun 2009 22:14:21 +0000:

>> Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is
>> fatally flawed.
>> 
>> 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member
>> being proxied is never made public.
>> 
> This is a problem.  Any time a council member requires a proxy, that
> should be published immediately (including who the proxy is).  Not
> possible for things coming up at the last minute, of course.

Extending that, what about having, at least for a first proxy level, a 
"designated proxy"?  Each council member would choose a proxy at the 
beginning of their term, or even as a running mate if taken that far.  
Designated proxies would then be effectively council members with 
observer status -- no voting power -- unless their designated member was 
absent.

Following the logic, designated proxies /could/ (IOW, I'm not sure it is 
practical to take it this far) be held to the same general council 
standards, slacker marks for non-attendance, etc, and in otherwise 
comment-closed sessions would have voice -- they just wouldn't have the 
vote unless their designated voting council member was absent.  

If the proxy was chosen at the beginning of the term (not as a running 
mate), the first order of business of the first meeting of a new council 
would be approving the table of proxies.  Either way, it would basically 
eliminate the question of whether a council member or designated proxy 
must be a dev or not, because either they'd have been voted in with that 
taken into account, or the council would have approved the designated 
proxies at the first meeting.  (I'd suggest, for fairness and efficiency, 
the first approval vote be held on the entire table of proxies, not 
individually.  If that vote fails, then go the individual route.  I'm not 
sure about what to do if a voting member doesn't make the first meeting; 
perhaps give the presumed proxy the vote for that first meeting, even if 
it means he's voting on approving himself?)

Now, practically speaking, if this is instituted, since we'd be 
effectively doubling the number of people on council (just not the number 
of votes), it may be useful to reduce the number of voting members a 
bit.  It would in fact be possible to have it an even number, as well, in 
which case, if there was a tie, the designated proxies could vote as 
well, with their combined votes taken as a single tie override.  (If the 
number of voting members were even, however, so would be the number of 
proxies, thus leading to the possibility of a tie vote there as well.  
I'd suggest that a wise policy in that case would be that the matter is 
voted down, as there's simply not enough consensus on the matter yet.  If 
desired, the issue could be brought up again in say... six months, thus 
giving each council two chances at a vote, without locking it up on the 
same issue for months at a time.  Alternatively, the first runner(s)-up 
could be the tie-breaker, and they'd need observer status as well, in 
ordered to be in the loop enough to cast that vote.)

FWIW, it's seven council members now.  Perhaps five would work, yielding 
ten, with the designated proxies as observers.  Even four, using the tie 
breaking rules above, making it 8 including designated proxies.  I'd hate 
to see it go below four as that gets too easy for abuse, but 4-5 should 
work.

Now if the running mate idea was implemented, there'd be another option 
as well.  Gentoo could continue the policy of runner-up taking the 
vacancy if one opens (and the runner-up isn't reopen_nominations), or it 
could switch to the designated proxy aka running mate taking the 
position.  Of course, in the latter case, the running mate would now need 
to select a proxy, which would then be handled using the approval process 
mentioned above.  (In the former case, the runner-up would have already 
had a running mate.)

If the running mates idea is chosen, a rule could be instituted that 
there's no person appearing at both voting member and running mate (on 
another ticket), or it could be that a first person on one ticket could 
be the running mate on another, but a person could only appear once in 
each spot.  (The latter would presumably end up with pair-tickets, where 
the top person switches off, tho that wouldn't be a given.  In the case 
of pair-tickets, choosing the one would automatically eliminate the other 
from further consideration, thereby eliminating the case of two voting 
council members being each others designated proxy, as well.

All this would eliminate the question of whether proxies are up to speed 
on a given issue, or the briefing they had been given, etc, at least for 
the first level of proxy, which would now be observer members unless 
their primary was absent, with the usual expectation and obligation of 
council members to follow the issues brought before the council.  Of 
course, it would increase the chance of both primary voting member and 
designated proxy being unavailable, but that could be handled with 
basically the system we have today, with the additional minimal 
requirement that non-designated proxies be Gentoo developers in good 
standing, as they wouldn't have gone thru the vote or approval process.

As a new council term is just now starting, obviously the running mate 
idea couldn't be used this year.  However, council members could still 
choose a designated proxy for the year, thus starting the process.  If 
all council members do so and the council chooses to vote on the table of 
proxies, then there should be no restriction on who is chosen, since 
they'll be voted on anyway.  If the council as a whole does not choose to 
go the designated proxy route this year, maintaining the status quo, then 
I'd say it's unfair to choose a non-dev as a proxy, because there has 
been no vote approving it.  (That would seem to be, after all, the reason 
the council members as devs restriction wasn't in GLEP 39, because they'd 
have been voted in, and presumably, if the voters, who /are/ devs, voted 
in a non-dev, they'd know what they were doing.  Since under the current 
system there's no such approval required for proxies, I'd say it's only 
fair that they be required to be devs, thus minimizing any controversy 
over their status, and votes they may take.)

-- 
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] Re: 2009 Council Elections

[Duncan]

Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> posted 4A47F8E3.8070703@gmail.com, excerpted
below, on  Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:12:35 -0500:

> As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask.  Why is that EVERYONE on the
> council must be there or have someone there to represent them?  Would
> Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present?

I believe the fear is in ultimately having a very small group of people 
(say 1-3) vote in something agreed among themselves, that the rest of the 
community doesn't agree with.  Gentoo devs tend to be a rather 
independent lot, and they don't want that risk.  That's the reason the 
council is seven members instead of say, five or three, as well.  With a 
three person council it's really easy to get just two acting in cahoots, 
and with five, getting a third person isn't that much harder.  A seven 
member council means in ordered for something to pass, at least four 
members must agree, and there's a lot of developers for whom that's 
simply the minimum number they can trust to make a reasonable decision.

From that viewpoint, if anyone's absent without proxy, it lowers the 
"safe" level dramatically, because it's just too easy to persuade one or 
two other folks to vote with you, even if they don't share your ulterior 
motive.  So the idea is to keep the number of votes to seven, so the 
number necessary for a majority is always a reasonably safe four.

> I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a
> developer.  If it is not that way now, it should be changed.  I been
> using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy.  I
> would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote.

I agree.  If I read GLEP 39 correctly, however, the reason it wasn't 
required that all council members be devs is because they'd be council 
members by virtue of being voted in by devs (being a dev is a requirement 
to vote).  Thus, if a majority of voting devs voted in a Gentoo-non-dev, 
presumably they'd be expressing explicit trust in that non-dev to do the 
right thing.

Of course, the same doesn't apply to proxies, who are single-person 
designated by the to-be-absent council member.  Thus, the safety margin 
doesn't exist there, they were NOT approved by the voting devs as a 
whole, or even the council as a whole, and it's certainly a reasonable 
argument that because of that, they should at least be devs.

However, see my recent post proposing designated proxies, taking the job 
for the full council term of a year.  They could either be voted in as 
running mates along with the (voting) council, or designated and approved 
as the first order of business of the new council.  (Since voting is 
already underway for the new council, it'd have to be designated and 
approved, this year, with the running mate idea perhaps next year if 
thought good.)

That'd eliminate both the unprepared proxy still trying to get up to 
speed on what he's supposed to be voting on, as they'd presumably be as 
prepared as would the regular voting council member, AND the problem of 
non-dev as proxy, since they'd at minimum have been approved by the 
council as a whole, if not voted in, in the same council vote as the 
(voting) council itself.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections

[Dale]

Duncan wrote:
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> posted 4A47F8E3.8070703@gmail.com, excerpted
> below, on  Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:12:35 -0500:
>
>   
>> As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask.  Why is that EVERYONE on the
>> council must be there or have someone there to represent them?  Would
>> Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present?
>>     
>
> I believe the fear is in ultimately having a very small group of people 
> (say 1-3) vote in something agreed among themselves, that the rest of the 
> community doesn't agree with.  Gentoo devs tend to be a rather 
> independent lot, and they don't want that risk.  That's the reason the 
> council is seven members instead of say, five or three, as well.  With a 
> three person council it's really easy to get just two acting in cahoots, 
> and with five, getting a third person isn't that much harder.  A seven 
> member council means in ordered for something to pass, at least four 
> members must agree, and there's a lot of developers for whom that's 
> simply the minimum number they can trust to make a reasonable decision.
>
> >From that viewpoint, if anyone's absent without proxy, it lowers the 
> "safe" level dramatically, because it's just too easy to persuade one or 
> two other folks to vote with you, even if they don't share your ulterior 
> motive.  So the idea is to keep the number of votes to seven, so the 
> number necessary for a majority is always a reasonably safe four.
>   

That makes sense so what about this theory?  A vote can only happen if a
certain number, say five or six, is in attendance.  That would end up
with there being a majority vote but by more than 3 people.  What you
say is very true.  I read about a city council that met and voted with
all the opposing side not being told it was going to happen at all. 
Needless to say, they got their way.  We all know how hard it is to take
something back once it is done. 

>   
>> I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a
>> developer.  If it is not that way now, it should be changed.  I been
>> using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy.  I
>> would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote.
>>     
>
> I agree.  If I read GLEP 39 correctly, however, the reason it wasn't 
> required that all council members be devs is because they'd be council 
> members by virtue of being voted in by devs (being a dev is a requirement 
> to vote).  Thus, if a majority of voting devs voted in a Gentoo-non-dev, 
> presumably they'd be expressing explicit trust in that non-dev to do the 
> right thing.
>
> Of course, the same doesn't apply to proxies, who are single-person 
> designated by the to-be-absent council member.  Thus, the safety margin 
> doesn't exist there, they were NOT approved by the voting devs as a 
> whole, or even the council as a whole, and it's certainly a reasonable 
> argument that because of that, they should at least be devs.
>
> However, see my recent post proposing designated proxies, taking the job 
> for the full council term of a year.  They could either be voted in as 
> running mates along with the (voting) council, or designated and approved 
> as the first order of business of the new council.  (Since voting is 
> already underway for the new council, it'd have to be designated and 
> approved, this year, with the running mate idea perhaps next year if 
> thought good.)
>
> That'd eliminate both the unprepared proxy still trying to get up to 
> speed on what he's supposed to be voting on, as they'd presumably be as 
> prepared as would the regular voting council member, AND the problem of 
> non-dev as proxy, since they'd at minimum have been approved by the 
> council as a whole, if not voted in, in the same council vote as the 
> (voting) council itself.
>
>   

I see the point you are making.  It seems to me that either proxies need
to end or they need to be "running mates" as you put it.  Then they
would have to be devs to be "voted" in as proxies which would solve the
whole issue.

BTW, I'm sort of a conspiracy theorist.  We have a family lawyer that
does our legal stuff and he has learned the hard way to look at every
single angle that is even remotely possible.  I got that trait from my
Mom.  It's also what I hate about our government here.  They pass laws
and have not freaking idea what it says and it is so ambiguous that you
can read into it whatever you like.  Makes it hard on the Judges and the
people since we never know what way the Judges will rule.  It's a crap
shoot basically.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Andrew D Kirch]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:04:14 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> The spirit and the letter of the rules are clear: the electorate can
> vote in whoever they want, and council members can appoint whoever they
> want so long as no-one has multiple votes at any given meaning. GLEP 39
> is very clear and explicit about all the restrictions.
>
>   
No one, and I mean no one (other than dev-zero apparently) wants you
voting on anything.
If your ties to GLEP's 54/55 are not sufficient to cause you a conflict
of interests then
your ties to exherbo do.  I would not _ever_ be able to accept a proxy
offer in good
conscience because of my work on Funtoo. 
Your lack of integrity, followed by your bellicose attitude simply
astounds me.

dev-zero should not have offered, and I think there needs to be a
discussion as to why
he did.

Ciaran, you should not EVER have accepted it.  The council was right in
throwing
it out.  This isn't hard, we don't need a whole new set of rules and
amendments to glep 39,
we need developers and participants with common sense.  Your behavior
disgusts me (though I
can point out that this is a continuous problem rather than simply
contained in this one
incident.)

Andrew D Kirch
Funtoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Andrew D Kirch]

Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, June 26, 2009 03:13, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
>   
>> Please be quiet.
>>     
>
> why ?, maillists is imho made to be used in non silent mode else one could aswell argue to close it down
>
>   
Mailing lists he's been booted from twice for astroturfing and abuse.

Andrew

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Andrew D Kirch]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
>> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530
>>> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed
>>>> (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council)
>>>>         
>>> Please point to the rule that says that a non-developer cannot be on
>>> the Council, and please point to the rule that says that a Council
>>> member cannot appoint a non-developer as their proxy. I see no mention
>>> of either in GLEP 39, which only restricts voting of Council members to
>>> developers, and only restricts proxies to not having one person with
>>> multiple votes.
>>>
>>>       
>> Oh so you'll argue semantics now? The spirit of the rule is
>> excessively clear. No non-gentoo-developer can be a member of council
>> -- permanent, temporary, or proxy.
>>
>> If a council member can't find a gentoo developer to be their proxy,
>> that says a lot about the council member.
>>
>> In any case, discussing this with you is completely m00t given my past
>> experiences with discussions with you.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~Nirbheek Chauhan
>>
>>     
>
> Actually, please read GLEP 39 and you will see that it doesn't restrict
> council members to developers only. Basically under the current rules I
> think it's technically right to be proxied by anyone. If you don't think
> being proxied by non developers is wise, don't vote for those council
> members next time. If we want to restrict the council to developers
> only, we should think about modifying GLEP 39 (which should be done via
> a vote among developers as that's they way 39 was agreed upon).
>
> Regards,
> Petteri
>
>   
I move that we elect George W Bush and Ciaran McCreesh Council Members
For Life.
Are these people serious?

Andrew

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

ndrew D Kirch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>   
> I move that we elect George W Bush and Ciaran McCreesh Council Members
> For Life.
> Are these people serious?
> 
> Andrew

Andrew,

I've chosen to reply to this particular mail, but this applies to your
other mails in this thread. I think we've understood by now your view
point, so there's no need to fill our mailboxes with more mails.
Also, please avoid such non-sense as the above


Everyone else,

unless you have a new and relevant point about this discussion that
hasn't been addressed yet and that you feel must really be put forth,
please make an effort and refrain from pressing the "send" button.


I would also like to recall everyone that any issues about Gentoo rules
or behaviour of developers or users, should follow procedures and the
discussion in this ml, although might provide an individual a sense of
"cleansing of the soul", won't activate those procedures.


Thank you.

-- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE

[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections

[Duncan]

Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> posted 4A480EC2.7030904@gmail.com, excerpted
below, on  Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:45:54 -0500:

> It's also what I hate about our government here.

From the context, I understood "here" /not/ to mean Gentoo.  FYI, while 
it's tempting to make comments paralleling various wider world political 
happenings, it's generally not wanted on this list, lest even /more 
arguments start, with these being /entirely/ off topic.

So please do steer clear of such parallels in the future.  If you have 
something about Gentoo to add to the conversation, fine (tho do remember 
it's a Gentoo dev list and those of us who are not Gentoo devs are 
guests), just keep the comments Gentoo related and don't stray 
elsewhere, /particularly/ politics (or religion... etc), even if it's as 
parallels or analogies.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3947 bytes --]

On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 23:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2009.06.28 23:14, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100
> > Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> > > What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by 
> > > entirely by non gentoo developer proxies?
> > > Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel
> > > bound 
> > > by decisions that such a meeting reached?
> > > 
> > 
> > Currently, yes.
> > 
> > > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so
> > it 
> > > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.
> > > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions
> > > made on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non 
> > > developers making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above 
> > > with that liability in mind.
> > > 
> > 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
> > > 
> > 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 
> exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the 
> council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a 
> decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go 
> there.
> 

I meant that the council can reverse itself.  I did not intend to imply
any trustee action --- I intended to imply that council should be able
to see when they had made an error of judgment.

> I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council 
> does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real 
> life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed 
> proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of 
> council members who may be proxied at any single meeting.  

Fair enough.  But I don't think such a meeting should ever happen.
Surely, council can reschedule a meeting if they see this coming up. :)

> As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether.
> We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council 
> members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that 
> does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the 
> council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that 
> decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers.  
> 
> - -- 
> 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
> =Npgw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 

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

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2337 bytes --]

On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:12 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Roy Bamford wrote:
> >
> >
> > You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case
> > exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the
> > council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a
> > decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go
> > there.
> >
> > I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council
> > does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real
> > life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed
> > proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of
> > council members who may be proxied at any single meeting.  
> >
> > As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether.
> > We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council
> > members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that
> > does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the
> > council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that
> > decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers.  
> >
> 
> I'm just picking a random message so no fingers being pointed here.
> 
> As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask.  Why is that EVERYONE on the
> council must be there or have someone there to represent them?  Would
> Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? 
> 
All that's required is a quorum (4 out of 7) to hold a meeting.

> I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a
> developer.  If it is not that way now, it should be changed.  I been
> using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy.  I
> would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote.
> 
> As a American that sees his own country's government getting out of
> control, never count on common sense.  Elected people rarely have any. 
> If they do during the election, it disappears after taking their
> position.  I think the vast majority of people here have seen that over
> the years.
> 
> My $0.02 worth.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

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

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3277 bytes --]

On E, 2009-06-29 at 12:32 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:12 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Roy Bamford wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case
> > > exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the
> > > council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a
> > > decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go
> > > there.
> > >
> > > I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council
> > > does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real
> > > life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed
> > > proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of
> > > council members who may be proxied at any single meeting.  
> > >
> > > As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether.
> > > We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council
> > > members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that
> > > does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the
> > > council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that
> > > decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers.  
> > >
> > 
> > I'm just picking a random message so no fingers being pointed here.
> > 
> > As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask.  Why is that EVERYONE on the
> > council must be there or have someone there to represent them?  Would
> > Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? 
> > 
> All that's required is a quorum (4 out of 7) to hold a meeting.

And when you have one less, it apparently immediately means a new
council election.
I guess that's one reason these days to always appoint proxies. The
other is otherwise getting a missed meeting record, then a slacker mark
and then a boot.
And then there's the long tradition of always when a meeting
un-attendance is foreseen a proxy getting appointed.


I guess the new council can think about this, but
a) time spent on figuring out such rules and whatnot to have to deal
with unfortunately happening corner cases is time better spent on
getting actual Gentoo improving done
b) I don't think the council itself should be having so much to do with
any such figuring out
c) there are far bigger reaching restructuring ideas in the works for
future proposals

> > I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a
> > developer.  If it is not that way now, it should be changed.  I been
> > using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy.  I
> > would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote.
> > 
> > As a American that sees his own country's government getting out of
> > control, never count on common sense.  Elected people rarely have any. 
> > If they do during the election, it disappears after taking their
> > position.  I think the vast majority of people here have seen that over
> > the years.
> > 
> > My $0.02 worth.
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-) 
> 
> Regards,
> Ferris
-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]