From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O0z4R-0006Ld-R7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8912E0942; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7695EE0921 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1678B1B4295 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.881, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NlTQ+s7+8-dj for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093C21B4265 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O0z47-0001OB-Fw for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:27:15 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:27:15 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:27:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Policy regarding the inactive members Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201004111616.41414.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <4BC1D709.2020503@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 50ab2413-0a3f-4be4-999c-27a91d5feb7c X-Archives-Hash: dc01bef477523f770def02aaa9f6763e Matti Bickel posted on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:04:57 +0200 as excerpted: >> A council member is inactive when: >>=20 >> 1) He is inactive in critical discussions ( such as the whole Phoenix >> discussion ) for a certain period of time >=20 > Please, no. Or we start to get -council/-dev threads about why a certai= n > thread here is not considered critical by half of the council when they > don't reply. If you can't put a number on it, please don't make it a > hard requirement. Agreed. I just don't see how this is can be practically enforced. Even=20 if it's possible to cleanly determine what threads apply, do we really=20 want council members posting the equivalent of "discussion-present"=20 messages? Does failure to post when someone else said it better, or even= =20 just said it already, indicate inactivity? >> 2) Fails to accomplish his role by supervising the Gentoo projects. >=20 > This isn't even in their domain. I would complain *loud* about any > council member interfering with projects unless it's an inter-project > issue. The council is meant for arbitration and vision, not for > commanding devs. I believe this was, in fact, specifically one of the reasons the purpose=20 was worded as it was, "global issues and policies that affect multiple=20 projects". Even if it was humanly possible for council to micro-manage,=20 should it? Projects and their leaders (and many participants) wanted the= =20 flexibility and freedom to make their own decisions, not have council=20 constantly second-guessing them. Instead, the wording is deliberately limiting to global Gentoo and inter- project issues, tho it can be noted that there remains in effect a way fo= r=20 council to act in the affairs of an individual project, should it be=20 deemed necessary, by declaring the issue to have escalated to enough=20 importance that it's now a global Gentoo issue. So there's a means of=20 escalation should it be necessary, and it's the council that makes that=20 judgment, subject only to reelection votes, but if it's clearly getting=20 out of hand, people will walk and form a new "genthree", if it comes to i= t. .... But an issue that I've wondered about before, that I've never seen=20 addressed, is this: With default-monthly meetings and council serving=20 only a year, that's only 12 meetings. A council member could make every=20 other one, skipping the last three in a row, and effectively the only=20 thing that could be done would be not reelect him. Now people are human, get sick, have loved ones die, have an earthquake=20 hit the day of the council meeting, whatever, so there's gotta be some=20 give. But it always seemed to me that a rolling 2 out of 3 should be required,=20 possibly with a council-can-forgive-one-absence clause. So if you miss=20 one, you better make the next two or you're forced to appeal to the "at=20 the mercy of the council" clause. And you can only use that council-merc= y=20 vote once, so if it happens again, you're out, period. Also, there needs to be a way for an accelerated new election, should it=20 be needed, as otherwise, by 8 months in, by the time the machinery gets=20 going, the new councilor might get in for the last meeting, when=20 presumably the old council is only finishing up tail-ends. Is it even=20 worth it? But that's really a topic for another (sub?)thread. Another alternative would be to make the terms a bit longer, perhaps 18=20 months or two years, having half the council replaced every 9 months or=20 annually. Or make it 14 months and stagger terms starting every two=20 months. The idea being, it's never "the last couple months" for=20 everyone. And if the terms are staggered every two months, elections=20 would be basically constant, they wouldn't be such a big deal, and counci= l=20 policy changes would be more gradual. --=20 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