From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JxloE-0004W9-Ea for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:32:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A11ECE058D; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A78BE058D for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.211] (c-76-18-195-255.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [76.18.195.255]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B08966FBE for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: gentoo-project In-Reply-To: <20080518171238.440645bd@snowcone> References: <20080508233328.GA8896@comet> <20080515204913.GA22285@comet> <20080515220543.5c5a2c03@snowcone> <482CB0B2.6090702@gentoo.org> <20080516164612.GA14234@comet> <482DF281.6010208@gentoo.org> <20080516213454.538ce4e8@anaconda.krait.us> <7c612fc60805161611w48d9e134m7437c4a29f33d79a@mail.gmail.com> <20080517001849.4802ceec@googlemail.com> <20080518105649.GC17371@basestar> <20080518160110.60840c3e@snowcone> <1211124360.5569.17.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <20080518163144.312ed2d9@googlemail.com> <1211125235.5569.33.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <20080518164926.51d638c8@googlemail.com> <1211126542.5569.52.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <20080518171238.440645bd@snowcone> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-LZu2DzcZhbhcdlfxB8Uq" Organization: Gentoo Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:32:25 -0400 Message-Id: <1211128345.5569.83.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 X-Archives-Salt: 67ad5dbf-0b62-44ef-b709-861acb06f4a4 X-Archives-Hash: a7805981f2b23e4d1848cf65e5ea72aa --=-LZu2DzcZhbhcdlfxB8Uq Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > The clause doesn't punish anyone. The clause ensures that Gentoo > developers get the effective management to which they are entitled. Any > punishment is done by the developers as a whole, when they decide who > to reelect and who to reject. Ok so what happens in the 2+ months it takes to elect a new council. Of which their first meeting is not likely to make much progress. But more establish bearings. Who is the council in the intern? What power do they wield? > It'll only be the same people running if every developer thinks that > no-one on the Council has screwed up in any way. If that's the case, we > get the same Council for another year -- no harm done. But if some > Council members are held in general to be 'bad', they will be replaced. >=20 > When the required election takes place, I expect there'll be two or > three changes, the same as there were for most other elections. What happens if this discourages past/present council members from running or others? As we have seen with the trustees. Do we want to kill off the council. Being as how we have never gone down this path before. The outcome is unknown. > Other people will presumably run too. I know at least a couple of > developers who have said that they'll be seriously considering running > against the current Council because of their dissatisfaction with the > way things are. Which concerns me. Given the abilities, level of contributions, etc of some of those on our current council. I can't think of any others with more knowledge or that would be better suited. Will !=3D skill. With the council being the top of our technical lead. I think that is 100% skill, and 0 will. > You might as well say "what's the point in holding yearly elections if > the same people end up standing?". That is completely different. That would be more of a sign of showing approval and reward of their actions. When we are punishing them due to failure to make a meeting, etc. That is not approval of their actions. Which should not be rewarded. > They can run. But anyone who's deemed to have screwed up too badly > won't be reelected. Only in theory. > One thing you should know -- developers had the choice of voting for > Grant's proposal with or without my slacker additions. They could also > have requested ballot options of "only the individual slacker rules, > not the 50% one too" had they wanted, but no-one did. The vote was very > heavily in favour of adding the slacker rules. Yes, and it was narrow cited. Likely high approval due to circumstances at the time. How many years ago? How many have retired and come on board since? Are the people, times, things still the same? I don't think people cared enough then or since. To considering the full implications of the clause the voted in. Thus it being partial and incomplete. Yet still approved, but never been enacted upon till now. Which at that time, reveals how half baked it was. Yet all still approved it. Not sure what that says, but doesn't seem good to me :) --=20 William L. Thomson Jr. amd64/Java/Trustees Gentoo Foundation --=-LZu2DzcZhbhcdlfxB8Uq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkgwWhkACgkQPrChP8zZLybRGwCg3TrtTQKCoOjpl+wCs3BEqZpl 5PQAoPAjoK9NL8xuRhyC4miayLE+cUAE =gxRe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-LZu2DzcZhbhcdlfxB8Uq-- -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list