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 1Jy8r4-0003uI-0i for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 May 2008 17:08:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 54939E03D2; Mon, 19 May 2008 17:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EEEE03D2 for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 17:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.213] (unknown [74.92.132.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28DE265AF9; Mon, 19 May 2008 17:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] (fwd) From: Ferris McCormick To: gentoo-project In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-DWOILpNBFdf8RU9Wp6xl" Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:08:53 +0000 Message-Id: <1211216933.5605.32.camel@liasis.inforead.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 2.12.3 X-Archives-Salt: 7f40925e-f880-43dd-bf82-63542e0eedfe X-Archives-Hash: 9e3921ade8ddcbd495419d518981f186 --=-DWOILpNBFdf8RU9Wp6xl Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 14:41 +0000, Richard Freeman wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:39:02 -0400 > From: Richard Freeman > To: Alistair Bush > Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Coun= cil > meeting summary for 8 May 2008] >=20 > Alistair Bush wrote: > > It really isn't the Councils decision and the only thing they can do t= o get > > themselves out of this situation is to hold an election. Firstly, even= tho > > this is absolutely minor , GLEP 39 has been "breached" and it details = what > > the solution is for that breach. Therefore that solution, a new counc= il via > > an election, _must_ be performed. > > >=20 > Uh - the word "must" is a bit strong. Why "must" an election be performe= d?=20 > GLEP 39 is a document several years old, that probably pre-dates half of = the=20 > devs here, and most likely most of the ones that were around weren't real= ly=20 > envisioning that it be used in this way today. >=20 I can't find the original choices archived on any of my systems, but as best as I recall, we knew what we were voting for and intended it to be used exactly as written. Now, the date on GLEP 39 (metastructure proposal) is September, 2005. What I do have archived is the slate of candidates for the first Council elected under this structure. It is dated 2005-08-01. So there should really be no question but that the policy predates the GLEP and thus the GLEP just reflects the policy chosen by the developer base. Policy says we must hold an election for a new Council within one month of the violation. No matter how you wish to read it or argue it, this leaves us about 28 days and counting. (GLEP 39 is a bit less that 3 years old. I suppose that qualifies as "several", but it's hardly ancient.) ........... SNIP ............. >=20 > The council was elected because they already had the respect of most gent= oo=20 > devs. That isn't going to change simply because a few people missed a me= eting. Probably not. But suppose we compound this and figure out a way to get around our written policy. What of respect then, Hmm? And by the way, this early election does reset the clock, so whoever gets elected will have a 12 month term starting presumably on or before 15 June. > =20 ................. SNIP .................. >=20 > > > > In fact, whose duty is it too call the election? Decide when any elect= ion is > > to take place? >=20 Council, I think, to implement the policy governing Council. It's like any other Council election, just happening in May instead of August/September, and compressed from 2 months into 1. > Hmm - I suspect that would again be the council - since everybody already= looks=20 > to them for leadership. Why don't we see what their perspective is? If = you=20 > feel strongly about new elections try contacting one of them directly and= =20 > talking about it. Most council members have gotten where they are becaus= e=20 > folks think they have a good head on their shoulders - they're likely to = listen=20 > to you. If they hear lots of people calling for a new election I suspect= that=20 > they'd go ahead and hold one. I think that those who are concerned about= this=20 > issue would get further in this way than by kicking up a storm on a maili= ng=20 > list (not that open discussion is a bad thing). Don't be surprised if th= ey=20 > don't take action on the basis of one communication, but if they hear fro= m lots=20 > of devs they'd probably take it seriously. Uh, the new election requirement is from existing policy. It's not really a popularity contest of some sort. And it's not based on what Council members want to do. If that were the case, there would be no point in having policies at all, would there? And as for contacting them directly, I thought that's what we were doing by discussing the matter in this thread. Regards, Ferris --=20 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) --=-DWOILpNBFdf8RU9Wp6xl 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) iEYEABECAAYFAkgxtCUACgkQQa6M3+I///dtqwCfV4N0lRMtXwp/LFcah2AKV7Qi 61oAoJn/gHQ+x8QCKWl5WyLfZWoZLoAI =0Zrq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-DWOILpNBFdf8RU9Wp6xl-- -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list