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 1QtPsH-0004WN-1h for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:04:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 952C721C1C0 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:04:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.140]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F2721C247 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QtPNp-0002T0-Nk for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:33:05 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:32:56 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Should DevRel members be in Council? To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20110816182817.GA30214@linux1> (from williamh@gentoo.org on Tue Aug 16 19:28:17 2011) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.8 Message-Id: <1313523185.2972.0@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="=-yELhgIWMGhpkRRoDgH7Q" X-Originating-Smarthost01-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: cd9ea721468de3cc2e13587ad910ded9 --=-yELhgIWMGhpkRRoDgH7Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011.08.16 19:28, William Hubbs wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: > > Quite a few of you know that Council acts as a court in case a > developer > > has unresolved disputes with Devrel or when he is not happy with a > > Devrel's decision. The problem is that having the same people in=20 > the > > Council and in Devrel makes no sense since the same people will=20 > vote > > twice on that matter. A developer who wants to appeal to Council, > seeks > > a review of his case and a fresh voting from new people. However, > having > > devrel members, which are already biased based on the previous > decision, > > makes the "Council's court role" a moot role :) >=20 > It definitely does create a conflict of interest. >=20 > I think there are a couple of ways to handle it: >=20 > 1) don't allow council members to be in devrel, or > 2) don't allow council members who are also in devrel to vote in > appeals. >=20 > What does everyone think? >=20 > William >=20 >=20 Team, I think anyone who gets elected to council has the trust of developers=20 to recluse themselves avoid the conflict of interest. It becomes a=20 problem when council is almost a subset of devrel and there are very=20 few people, perhaps zero, who were not involved in the original devrel=20 decision. Council were set up to provide technical leadership, so maybe appeals,=20 need to be heard by a different body anyway. Maybe by a randomly=20 selected group of devs assembled on a case by case basis, as has=20 already been suggested?=20 --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees = --=-yELhgIWMGhpkRRoDgH7Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk5KxfEACgkQTE4/y7nJvas1vQCgukg3QMzgCrmUucDGCTacz6Hp BzsAoIayFAby73m9h3+UAsNgla/xGYbj =mgmb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-yELhgIWMGhpkRRoDgH7Q--