From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE1AF1382C5 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 13DDDE0A9E; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE80DE0A9A for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C7DA335C2C; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1518462892.1464.5.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:14:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: <23169.22344.839501.980448@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <23169.22344.839501.980448@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 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-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: f5684e14-853c-4c84-ad26-c1c72088ef11 X-Archives-Hash: c87adadd75b22bc2a3363216a8cbdde3 W dniu pon, 12.02.2018 o godzinie 09∶58 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, William Hubbs wrote: > > I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose > > actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have > > felt this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the > > full council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. > > Thoughts? > > By the same logic, council members should not be members of _any_ > project, because the council can override any project's decisions. > I second this. If someone appeals Toolchain team decision, do we require the Council to have no Toolchain members? What if the appeal is multi-step, e.g. Recruiters -> ComRel -> Council? Does it imply that Recruiters also shouldn't be in Council? -- Best regards, Michał Górny