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 505321382C5 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A330E0AA1; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:53:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 0DE06E0A97 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:53:12 +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 71409335C2F; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1518587586.3975.3.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: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 06:53:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20180214002141.1d8a6da2@gentoo.org> References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180214002141.1d8a6da2@gentoo.org> 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: 27560fb7-0ae1-4923-8949-0355cdd6cef6 X-Archives-Hash: 067b3bf678620f02170fa07f7f29b144 W dniu śro, 14.02.2018 o godzinie 00∶21 +0100, użytkownik Alexis Ballier napisał: > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:42:34 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > The council can't make this change since it is a glep 39 change, so I > > am bringing it to the community for discussion -- I assume there > > would need to be a full dev vote to make it happen. > > > > 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. > > In most sane entities I've seen where there's a possible conflict of > interest, people remotely suspected to be biased not only refrain from > voting but also keep quiet during the whole discussion. All of this by > themselves. > > I don't think we should prevent any such conflict by prohibiting people > from running from council (or forcing them to resign from other > duties). Self-discipline should be enough, but since you feel this is > not properly applied, maybe a rule to say they should not participate > to the discussion nor voting in those cases would be saner ? > For the record: we currently count 3 QA members in the Council. Given their abstention, that means that for any motion to pass, all remaining Council members would have to vote 'yes'. If we had one more QA member, all motions would automatically be rejected by abstention. However, I would personally lean towards changing the voting model to be less silly and make abstention really distinct from 'no'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny