[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 16:33 Thu 08 May     , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Enforced retirement: After 2.5 hours on the previous topics, people had 
> to go to sleep and jokey's computer broke. Instead of waiting till the 
> next regular meeting, because of its urgency, we scheduled a special 
> session next week at the same time. The appeals will *not* be decided 
> then -- it's about figuring out the validity and the process.

2 of us have shown up -- amne and me. That's really pathetic, guys. What 
happened? Did the rest of you miss the announcement in the summary? I 
was looking at the IRC log from last week, and here's what I saw 
(relevant parts only):

< FlameBook+> I'm fine with the reschedule, as I'm probably going away soon, too
< dberkholz@> amne, Betelgeuse, FlameBook, solar -- rescheduling to a special session work?
< dberkholz@> ah, FlameBook already said yes
<Betelgeuse@> o
<Betelgeuse@> k
< dberkholz@> looks like amne went to bed
< dberkholz@> enough of us agree on that, so let's do it

lu_zero said on IRC last night that he was going to be traveling today, 
but nobody's shown up to proxy for him:

<   lu_zero@> dberkholz today we'll the extended council meeting, isn't it?
< dberkholz@> i optimistically hope it's not "extended" in the "taking a long time" sense
< dberkholz@> but the postponed topics from last week, yes
<   lu_zero@> dberkholz again I'll be travelling
< dberkholz@> lu_zero: oh, did it just come up?
<   lu_zero@> dberkholz pretty much =_=
<   lu_zero@> lately my time-space position is quite random
<   lu_zero@> _Hopefully_ I'll be there
<   lu_zero@> but 4 hours of travel can be extended =_=

That means that it's conceivable that if solar (vapier's proxy), vapier 
and jokey didn't check IRC again or read the council summary, they 
could've missed the announcement. I guess I can see how people who are 
at the meeting might not read the summary, because they sat through it. 
I blame myself for not sending a standalone announcement outside of the 
summary.

tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:

    If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
    new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
    year' is then reset from that point.

musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
meetings or also irregular ones like this.

Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? I 
look forward to hearing your advice.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1033 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:49:14 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> 
>     If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
>     new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
>     year' is then reset from that point.
> 
> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> meetings or also irregular ones like this.

Since I'm the one to blame for those bits of GLEP 39...

The wording's fairly explicit -- *any* meeting. The GLEP doesn't say
that the council has monthly meetings. It merely requires *at least*
one meeting per month:

>     The council must hold an open meeting at least once per month.

The Council is free to decide when it has meetings so long as it meets
that requirement. In this case, the Council decided to hold two
meetings this month.

Looks like you don't have much choice but to do what the GLEP says
and schedule an election...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1379 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:49:14 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
>>
>>     If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
>>     new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
>>     year' is then reset from that point.
>>
>> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
>> meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> 
> Since I'm the one to blame for those bits of GLEP 39...
> 
> The wording's fairly explicit -- *any* meeting. The GLEP doesn't say
> that the council has monthly meetings. It merely requires *at least*
> one meeting per month:
> 
>>     The council must hold an open meeting at least once per month.
> 
> The Council is free to decide when it has meetings so long as it meets
> that requirement. In this case, the Council decided to hold two
> meetings this month.
> 
> Looks like you don't have much choice but to do what the GLEP says
> and schedule an election...
> 

Keeping an election is really not that much trouble so I would just do 
it. As for why I didn't attend it's because my server hasn't really been 
able to keep itself up lately and with no access to my regular irssi 
screen I forgot to get myself online via other means.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 00:52 Fri 16 May     , Petteri Räty wrote:
> Keeping an election is really not that much trouble so I would just do it. 
> As for why I didn't attend it's because my server hasn't really been able 
> to keep itself up lately and with no access to my regular irssi screen I 
> forgot to get myself online via other means.

We could hold a 2-week vote that is simply something like this:

"Do you want to elect new council members? A 'yes' vote means that you 
want an election. A 'no' vote means that you want to retain the existing 
council."

That might preempt the time required (wasted?) for an all-out 
nomination+election.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 00:52 Fri 16 May     , Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Keeping an election is really not that much trouble so I would just do it. 
>> As for why I didn't attend it's because my server hasn't really been able 
>> to keep itself up lately and with no access to my regular irssi screen I 
>> forgot to get myself online via other means.
> 
> We could hold a 2-week vote that is simply something like this:
> 
> "Do you want to elect new council members? A 'yes' vote means that you 
> want an election. A 'no' vote means that you want to retain the existing 
> council."
> 
> That might preempt the time required (wasted?) for an all-out 
> nomination+election.
> 

This isn't a bad idea.

However, I do think this is much ado about nothing.  The purpose of 
policy is to make Gentoo work better.  The purpose of Gentoo isn't to 
make policies work better.  If a policy doesn't make sense it should be 
changed.  If it didn't make sense a week ago then it should be changed 
retroactively.  This isn't a criminal proceeding - we're looking to 
advance a distro, not be a testing lab for concepts in jurisprudence.

I suspect that 90% of devs are not eager to have an election right now. 
  It seems kind of silly to hold one over this issue.  If the goal is to 
prevent slacking why not make the rule "three meetings with <50% and any 
slackers at 2 of those 3 immediately lose their posts" or something like 
that.

We have to try to remember that Gentoo is a volunteer effort - not a 
full time job.  I'd rather have good council members who have both 
technical strength and good people-skills / common-sense / etc, than 
have a council full of people who merely have nothing better to do at 
4PM EST on a Thursday afternoon (or whatever time it is locally for you).

We want to promote open processes/etc, but it isn't good for the distro 
to go through a re-election ever three months due to some technicality.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:45:53 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 00:52 Fri 16 May     , Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Keeping an election is really not that much trouble so I would just do it. 
> >> As for why I didn't attend it's because my server hasn't really been able 
> >> to keep itself up lately and with no access to my regular irssi screen I 
> >> forgot to get myself online via other means.
> > 
> > We could hold a 2-week vote that is simply something like this:
> > 
> > "Do you want to elect new council members? A 'yes' vote means that you 
> > want an election. A 'no' vote means that you want to retain the existing 
> > council."
> > 
> > That might preempt the time required (wasted?) for an all-out 
> > nomination+election.
> > 
> 
> This isn't a bad idea.
> 
> However, I do think this is much ado about nothing.  The purpose of 
> policy is to make Gentoo work better.  The purpose of Gentoo isn't to 
> make policies work better.  If a policy doesn't make sense it should be 
> changed.  If it didn't make sense a week ago then it should be changed 
> retroactively.  This isn't a criminal proceeding - we're looking to 
> advance a distro, not be a testing lab for concepts in jurisprudence.
> 

I rather doubt that if you'd asked anyone a week ago if GLEP 39 made
sense, that people would have told you no.  And I will point out that
one of the items for discussion at the non-meeting was whether or not
GLEP 39 should be clarified (in another area).  Thus, it seems to me
that Council would have read GLEP 39 before yesterday and have been
aware of the 50% attendance requirement.

And as I've said before, if we think a policy doesn't make sense, we
can change it.  But changing a policy that affects Council and then
applying it retroactively gets tricky, because Council themselves are
part of the approval process.  Changing policy is a fairly lengthy
procedure, but right now Council is on a one month clock to hold an
election unless something changes.  It still seems to me that Petteri
has it right, and that it's better just to do it rather than talk about
it. 



> I suspect that 90% of devs are not eager to have an election right now. 
>   It seems kind of silly to hold one over this issue.  If the goal is to 
> prevent slacking why not make the rule "three meetings with <50% and any 
> slackers at 2 of those 3 immediately lose their posts" or something like 
> that.
> 

Actually, the rule for individual slackers is stronger.  It's all
spelled out in the GLEP.

> We have to try to remember that Gentoo is a volunteer effort - not a 
> full time job.  I'd rather have good council members who have both 
> technical strength and good people-skills / common-sense / etc, than 
> have a council full of people who merely have nothing better to do at 
> 4PM EST on a Thursday afternoon (or whatever time it is locally for you).
> 

I agree.  That's one reason they can send proxies of they can't be
there.

> We want to promote open processes/etc, but it isn't good for the distro 
> to go through a re-election ever three months due to some technicality.

Do you really view this as a possibility?  Then the GLEP should be
amended, I suppose.

> -- 
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 

Regards,
Ferris
- -- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgt/gUACgkQQa6M3+I///cHMgCfS/mB5CbH2Vm8VXWurOGPboXD
xMAAnipznWXn4bpRkicw9zsmZUDEmfz2
=EQef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2287 bytes --]

Ferris McCormick wrote:
> And as I've said before, if we think a policy doesn't make sense, we
> can change it.  But changing a policy that affects Council and then
> applying it retroactively gets tricky, because Council themselves are
> part of the approval process.  

Nothing too tricky - council votes that the GLEP is to be modified 
retroactively.  A few folks complain.  Life goes on.

 > Changing policy is a fairly lengthy
> procedure, but right now Council is on a one month clock to hold an
> election unless something changes.  It still seems to me that Petteri
> has it right, and that it's better just to do it rather than talk about
> it. 
> 

What happens if we just do nothing and pretend it didn't happen?  Most 
likely, not much.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not into dictatorships and I'm a big proponent 
of democracy.  If most devs really want another election, then let's get 
it going.  However, all of about 4-6 people (and not all devs) have 
chimed in on this discussion, which suggests that most don't care.  If 
most devs don't care for a new election, wouldn't it just be a major 
distraction to call for an election now?  You'll have three months of a 
lame-duck council and all kinds of decisions may get put off.

A few posters in this thread have suggested that they'll probably vote 
for the exact same council, but it is just important that we follow the 
process.  Hopefully none of these posters are among those accusing 
Gentoo of being bureaucratic - having an election just for the sake of 
having an election when most folks don't want a change just seems like 
an exercise in procedure.

I'm just trying to be pragmatic - the council was democratically 
elected, and a new council will be elected in a few months.  If the 
council just went and disappeared I could see the need for an emergency 
election to keep things going.  However, at this point an election will 
just delay stuff getting done.

I think that an election now would be a mistake.  However, if we really 
want to survey the devs it wouldn't be a bad thing, although if anybody 
other than the few of us cared strongly they could just post here.  If 
there really are a lot of devs who would like us to follow the letter of 
the current GLEP 39 then I'd be all for an election.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3657 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 709 bytes --]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:39:03 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > And as I've said before, if we think a policy doesn't make sense, we
> > can change it.  But changing a policy that affects Council and then
> > applying it retroactively gets tricky, because Council themselves
> > are part of the approval process.  
> 
> Nothing too tricky - council votes that the GLEP is to be modified 
> retroactively.  A few folks complain.  Life goes on.

They don't have that authority. GLEP 39 wasn't approved as a GLEP. It
was approved by global vote, and retroactively written up as a GLEP
to make it easy to reference and find.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1196 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 23:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:39:03 -0400
> Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:
> > Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > And as I've said before, if we think a policy doesn't make sense, we
> > > can change it.  But changing a policy that affects Council and then
> > > applying it retroactively gets tricky, because Council themselves
> > > are part of the approval process.  
> > 
> > Nothing too tricky - council votes that the GLEP is to be modified 
> > retroactively.  A few folks complain.  Life goes on.
> 
> They don't have that authority. GLEP 39 wasn't approved as a GLEP. It
> was approved by global vote, and retroactively written up as a GLEP
> to make it easy to reference and find.

Interesting that the word global keeps being used. I noticed the
rule/policy we are discussion is under

B. Global issues will be decided by an elected Gentoo council.

Also where does it state the council does not have the power to change
GLEP 39? Or that changes to it must be done by a global vote of
developers, and not council members?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:39:03 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:

> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > And as I've said before, if we think a policy doesn't make sense, we
> > can change it.  But changing a policy that affects Council and then
> > applying it retroactively gets tricky, because Council themselves are
> > part of the approval process.  
> 
> Nothing too tricky - council votes that the GLEP is to be modified 
> retroactively.  A few folks complain.  Life goes on.
> 
>  > Changing policy is a fairly lengthy
> > procedure, but right now Council is on a one month clock to hold an
> > election unless something changes.  It still seems to me that Petteri
> > has it right, and that it's better just to do it rather than talk about
> > it. 
> > 
> 
> What happens if we just do nothing and pretend it didn't happen?  Most 
> likely, not much.
> 

We send the message to the community that policies don't much matter.
In this case, someone did bring up policy, so I don't see how we can
pretend it didn't happen.

> Don't get me wrong - I'm not into dictatorships and I'm a big proponent 
> of democracy.  If most devs really want another election, then let's get 
> it going.  However, all of about 4-6 people (and not all devs) have 
> chimed in on this discussion, which suggests that most don't care.  If 
> most devs don't care for a new election, wouldn't it just be a major 
> distraction to call for an election now?  You'll have three months of a 
> lame-duck council and all kinds of decisions may get put off.
> 

Not really, because the clock resets.  So the election is for 12
months.  That's pretty clear in the GLEP, I think.

> A few posters in this thread have suggested that they'll probably vote 
> for the exact same council, but it is just important that we follow the 
> process.  Hopefully none of these posters are among those accusing 
> Gentoo of being bureaucratic - having an election just for the sake of 
> having an election when most folks don't want a change just seems like 
> an exercise in procedure.
> 
> I'm just trying to be pragmatic - the council was democratically 
> elected, and a new council will be elected in a few months.  If the 
> council just went and disappeared I could see the need for an emergency 
> election to keep things going.  However, at this point an election will 
> just delay stuff getting done.
> 
> I think that an election now would be a mistake.  However, if we really 
> want to survey the devs it wouldn't be a bad thing, although if anybody 
> other than the few of us cared strongly they could just post here.  If 
> there really are a lot of devs who would like us to follow the letter of 
> the current GLEP 39 then I'd be all for an election.

Regards,
Ferris
- -- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkguGwkACgkQQa6M3+I///ciggCgkCqB/WFMB5v1z1H1SWrK8O1X
8rEAn1BqjKgYyMJFxCiUIBoeUAJkU/l1
=ydab
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I am sometimes accused of "playing lawyer" when I get into discussions
like this.  Curiously, I almost never play lawyer, and I pretty much
ignore such comments.  So, warning:  In this response, I am going to
play lawyer, look at the "B.  Global issues ..." bit of GLEP 39, and
float an interpretation based on how I understand the intent.  It might
provide a way to proceed, but it will also require Council to open its
sealed logs to some third party.  Further comments in the proper spot
of the reply.

And as I repeat below, if ciaranm indicates that my reading is
incorrect, then I withdraw the argument which follows.


On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:38:42 +0000
Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:39:03 -0400
> Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> wrote:
> 
> > Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > And as I've said before, if we think a policy doesn't make sense, we
> > > can change it.  But changing a policy that affects Council and then
> > > applying it retroactively gets tricky, because Council themselves are
> > > part of the approval process.  
> > 
> > Nothing too tricky - council votes that the GLEP is to be modified 
> > retroactively.  A few folks complain.  Life goes on.
> > 
> >  > Changing policy is a fairly lengthy
> > > procedure, but right now Council is on a one month clock to hold an
> > > election unless something changes.  It still seems to me that Petteri
> > > has it right, and that it's better just to do it rather than talk about
> > > it. 
> > > 
> > 
> > What happens if we just do nothing and pretend it didn't happen?  Most 
> > likely, not much.
> > 
> 
> We send the message to the community that policies don't much matter.
> In this case, someone did bring up policy, so I don't see how we can
> pretend it didn't happen.
> 

<Lawyer Alert>

Let's look at "B. Global issues ..." and ciaranm's clarification of the
intent to see how we can interpret GLEP 39 in such a way as to satisfy
its intent without potentially forcing frequest Council elections and
without having to start tinkering with a pretty good policy statement.
I'm going to follow the international style and number my arguments,
and this is one of the few times you will see me play a lawyer. :)  For
clarity, I letter my conclusions.

1.  It is clear that if Council ever calls a meeting, anyone who
does not show up is marked absent and potentially a slacker;
2.  Thus, no matter how anything else turns out, 3 or 4 Council members
might get slacker marks for missing the meeting called for 15.v.08.
3.  The Council did schedule a meeting for 15.v.08 but never actually
did anything because it could not form a quorum.
4.  On its face this looks like a violation of the 50% rule;
5.  But the purpose of the 50% rule is to prevent some subset of the
Council from meeting and taking any sort of action (that is, if Council
ever do anything, they must have a quorum).
6.  So we might argue that while it was pretty bad form for Council to
gather together a meeting on the 15th and then mostly not show up, they
didn't actually do anything so the intent of the 50% rule was not
violated.
- ---> I pass this on to ciaranm for a correct interpretation
because he knows the intent <---
7.  If we read GLEP 39 like that, then this is not the end of the
story, because:
8.  In the events leading up to the non-meeting of the 15th, it is
pretty clear that some number of Council members (a) did meet with
devrel lead one or more times, (b) in secret session(s), and (c)
*something* must have happened because as a result devrel lead took
action on complaint(s?) made directly to Council.
9.  If at ANY of those sessions fewer that 50% of the Council were
present, then GLEP 39 most certainly was violated under the
interpretation in PPS 5, 6 (the ones which can get Council off the hook
for the 15th if we buy them).
10.  Logs of those sessions are closed, however.
11.  Thus, under one arguable reading of GLEP 39, we can have the
following:

A)  For the 15.v.08 non-event, we have lots of absent members and as a
result might or might be forced to replace some Council members under
the slacker parts of GLEP 39.
B)  Since the non-meeting of 15.v.08 didn't take any action except for
never starting, we can say that the 50% rule technically was not
violated;
C)  But if we use that reading, then some number of "secret sessions"
of the Council most certainly did happen (if for no other reason, we
know this because devrel lead clarified policy and took action on
complaints which went directly to Council.)
D)  If at *any* of these sessions fewer that 4 Council members were
present, GLEP 39 50% rule was violated in fact and in spirit.
E)  Under this reading of GLEP 39, we must open all those logs to some
trusted members of the community (developers or not) who have no
connection to either devrel or Council for review.
F)  If Council never met with fewer than 4 in attendance at these closed
sessions, we can probably finesse the open non-event of the 15th where
Council did nothing but annoy a lot of people.
G)  If Council members did ever meet in private without a quorum, then
GLEP 39 is most certainly violated and we must replace Council;
H)  If for some reason Council cannot or will not open those logs as in
E) then this entire argument must fail and we must replace Council for
the 15th.  (Council do not get any White House executive privilege or
"missing emails" sort of pass.  With this reading, "no records" ==
"violation and forced election.")
F)  In other words, we can call the 15th a non-meeting for purposes of
GLEP 39 because nothing happened.  But then all the closed sessions
leading up to the 15th must be treated as actual meetings because as a
result something did happen, and for them the quorum rule most
certainly does apply.

</end Lawyer Alert>

That's how I'd argue it so save Council from themselves for the 15th.
I could probably rearrange it and tighten it up, but that's me playing
lawyer. But it's all or none.  You can't pick the parts you like and
ignore the rest.

Also, if ciaranm says my interpretation is incorrect, I defer to him as
the author of this policy and withdraw it.

For the record:  I've never seen the logs.  I have talked to some of
- --- --- -------
the players involved, but I have no idea at all if this approach would
force a Council election.  And it could influence the discussion when
the non-meeting finally happens, because there will be non-players
around who will know all about events leading up to it.

> > Don't get me wrong - I'm not into dictatorships and I'm a big proponent 
> > of democracy.  If most devs really want another election, then let's get 
> > it going.  However, all of about 4-6 people (and not all devs) have 
> > chimed in on this discussion, which suggests that most don't care.  If 
> > most devs don't care for a new election, wouldn't it just be a major 
> > distraction to call for an election now?  You'll have three months of a 
> > lame-duck council and all kinds of decisions may get put off.
> > 
> 
> Not really, because the clock resets.  So the election is for 12
> months.  That's pretty clear in the GLEP, I think.
> 
> > A few posters in this thread have suggested that they'll probably vote 
> > for the exact same council, but it is just important that we follow the 
> > process.  Hopefully none of these posters are among those accusing 
> > Gentoo of being bureaucratic - having an election just for the sake of 
> > having an election when most folks don't want a change just seems like 
> > an exercise in procedure.
> > 
> > I'm just trying to be pragmatic - the council was democratically 
> > elected, and a new council will be elected in a few months.  If the 
> > council just went and disappeared I could see the need for an emergency 
> > election to keep things going.  However, at this point an election will 
> > just delay stuff getting done.
> > 
> > I think that an election now would be a mistake.  However, if we really 
> > want to survey the devs it wouldn't be a bad thing, although if anybody 
> > other than the few of us cared strongly they could just post here.  If 
> > there really are a lot of devs who would like us to follow the letter of 
> > the current GLEP 39 then I'd be all for an election.
> 
> Regards,
> Ferris
> - -- 
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkguGwkACgkQQa6M3+I///ciggCgkCqB/WFMB5v1z1H1SWrK8O1X
> 8rEAn1BqjKgYyMJFxCiUIBoeUAJkU/l1
> =ydab
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> [Error decoding BASE64]

Regards,
Ferris
- -- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkguoiEACgkQQa6M3+I///eeewCfc5npsCr+oc6hsbh5dksbMpso
CmQAoN27fEC4IjeBq7Z5uxLPUSt+GtSM
=dRBW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Changing policy is a fairly lengthy procedure

Making such a minor change to a GLEP (i.e. deleting a line) and having
the council vote on it can technically be done in a day. Practically,
it can easily be done in a week or even less if you include the
mandatory discussion. By the way, the discussion is mandatory but
there is no requirement on its duration, and it isn't mandatory for
anybody to agree on anything prior to submitting the GLEP and the
council voting on it.

I'm not saying we should change GLEP 39. I just wanted to point out
that in case we need it it can be done easily and quick enough, and
without bending any rule.

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> They don't have that authority. GLEP 39 wasn't approved as a GLEP. It
> was approved by global vote, and retroactively written up as a GLEP
> to make it easy to reference and find.

Does the council have any authority at all ? Will Ciaran eventually
reveal the eleventh commandment ? Are we locked into GLEP 39 forever ?
And who is this Ciaran anyway ? Dear readers, you'll find the answers
to these questions and many more in the next episode.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 01:11:54 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > They don't have that authority. GLEP 39 wasn't approved as a GLEP.
> > It was approved by global vote, and retroactively written up as a
> > GLEP to make it easy to reference and find.
> 
> Does the council have any authority at all ? Will Ciaran eventually
> reveal the eleventh commandment ? Are we locked into GLEP 39 forever ?
> And who is this Ciaran anyway ? Dear readers, you'll find the answers
> to these questions and many more in the next episode.

I realise you might not known any of this if you weren't around when
Gentoo's management structure was set up, but there's no need to be
such a twat when discussing it. So the answer to the question you could
have asked politely: you're locked into what's now known as GLEP 39
until there's a global vote to replace it with something else. 

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I realise you might not known any of this if you weren't around when
> Gentoo's management structure was set up, but there's no need to be
> such a twat when discussing it. So the answer to the question you could
> have asked politely: you're locked into what's now known as GLEP 39
> until there's a global vote to replace it with something else.

I realize you might not have known that I knew and that I totally
disagreed. You're the one that's locked in a past that doesn't exist
anymore. Gentoo is free to change and evolve and doesn't need your
authorization. Nor mine. Gentoo will become whatever the council
decides it should become until the next elections. At which point
there will be another council. You're free to stay behind, that's your
choice.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1164 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 01:50:04 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I realise you might not known any of this if you weren't around when
> > Gentoo's management structure was set up, but there's no need to be
> > such a twat when discussing it. So the answer to the question you
> > could have asked politely: you're locked into what's now known as
> > GLEP 39 until there's a global vote to replace it with something
> > else.
> 
> I realize you might not have known that I knew and that I totally
> disagreed. You're the one that's locked in a past that doesn't exist
> anymore. Gentoo is free to change and evolve and doesn't need your
> authorization. Nor mine. Gentoo will become whatever the council
> decides it should become until the next elections. At which point
> there will be another council. You're free to stay behind, that's your
> choice.

So you're saying the Council is free to entirely ignore the rules under
which it was elected, and instead say "We are now supreme dictators for
life"?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> So you're saying the Council is free to entirely ignore the rules under
> which it was elected, and instead say "We are now supreme dictators for
> life"?
> 

I think that there is a balance somewhere between supreme dictators for 
life and needing to have new elections because a few people didn't 
notice that the very-rare non-regular council meeting got scheduled.

If Gentoo were a corporation it would have bylaws governing these sorts 
of issues and they'd be far more detailed than GLEP 39.  Legally the 
council doesn't have any meaning as it doesn't control any tangible 
assets - so such matters really don't need to apply.

The principle is one of openness and representative democracy.  I don't 
think we sacrifice that by letting the current council finish its term.

The council governs with the consent of the developers - nobody is 
disputing this.  If the council loses the support of the developers it 
would be appropriate to choose a new council - which is a better option 
than pulling an XFree86 and watching all the devs just form their own 
new distro.  However, I don't really see any evidence that anybody at 
all is unhappy with the council (even those calling for the new 
elections aren't expressing any dissatisfaction with the current council).

To me this is like running a stop sign in the middle of nowhere with a 
wide open view and no cars in sight.  I probably wouldn't do it, and I 
can see why it is technically wrong, but I don't think I could really 
say that anybody who runs the sign is doing harm to society by doing so. 
  Policies should serve the distro and the developers - not the other 
way around.

Maybe we just won't see eye to eye on this - that's OK I suppose.  If 
lots of people really want new elections then let's have them.  However, 
to me it just seems like a waste and I don't think we're obligated to 
hold them just because 3-4 people have called for them.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Freeman wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|> So you're saying the Council is free to entirely ignore the rules under
|> which it was elected, and instead say "We are now supreme dictators for
|> life"?
|>
|
| I think that there is a balance somewhere between supreme dictators for
| life and needing to have new elections because a few people didn't
| notice that the very-rare non-regular council meeting got scheduled.
|

Richard,

an important way to achieve a balance is to have rules and to have
everyone respect them - in particular our governing body.

|
| Maybe we just won't see eye to eye on this - that's OK I suppose.  If
| lots of people really want new elections then let's have them.  However,
| to me it just seems like a waste and I don't think we're obligated to
| hold them just because 3-4 people have called for them.

The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally,
I don't want to vote for the council now. The problem is that we have a
policy (which clearly needs some clearing as not everyone agrees on it)
and that pretending it doesn't exist or to change it and apply it
retroactively is a bad precedent.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgvKCYACgkQcAWygvVEyAJQjQCffetvVCYlF2h6+PIPf7P+EIpX
6oIAoIUDbCjLzInq2P4uCuhrtUaIBHKA
=MOp7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally,
> I don't want to vote for the council now. 

Then don't!  Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of 
those who are represented to triumph?  If that will is to not hold an 
election, wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it?

 > The problem is that we have a
> policy (which clearly needs some clearing as not everyone agrees on it)
> and that pretending it doesn't exist or to change it and apply it
> retroactively is a bad precedent.
> 

I think the worst precedent to set would be one of following policies at 
any cost.  I'd say that one of the key differences between people and 
machines is that the latter merely follow a pre-designed set of rules, 
while the former are free to do whatever is best in a given situation. 
Why should we ignore common sense in favor of "if p then q ; p==true ; 
therefore q"?

Policies are important.  It is important that they be well thought out. 
  It is also important that when a policy is dumb that people not 
blindly follow it.  I hope that when infrastructure is maintaining 
systems in accordance with some standard procedure that when they see an 
error in the procedure that will cause major disruption they don't just 
say "well, the council or whoever approved this procedure - they must 
want me to hose the cvs server."

If the council does decide to hold new elections, could they at least 
make a point to nuke this bullet item in GLEP 39?  I think the whole 
slacker policy is a bit harsh in general - maybe it could be adjusted 
somewhat.  At the very least, there should be some policy regarding 
notice for meetings - if somebody is on vacation for two weeks it would 
be a bummer for them to be marked a slacker because they didn't hear 
about a meeting...
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>
>> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally,
>> I don't want to vote for the council now.
>
> Then don't!  Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of those
> who are represented to triumph?  If that will is to not hold an election,
> wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it?

So minimally we would require a vote to determine 'the will of the
represented'.  Note that this thread is insufficient to determine that
(there are plenty of devs not participating in this thread).

>
>> The problem is that we have a
>>
>> policy (which clearly needs some clearing as not everyone agrees on it)
>> and that pretending it doesn't exist or to change it and apply it
>> retroactively is a bad precedent.
>>
>
> I think the worst precedent to set would be one of following policies at any
> cost.  I'd say that one of the key differences between people and machines
> is that the latter merely follow a pre-designed set of rules, while the
> former are free to do whatever is best in a given situation. Why should we
> ignore common sense in favor of "if p then q ; p==true ; therefore q"?
>
> Policies are important.  It is important that they be well thought out.  It
> is also important that when a policy is dumb that people not blindly follow
> it.  I hope that when infrastructure is maintaining systems in accordance
> with some standard procedure that when they see an error in the procedure
> that will cause major disruption they don't just say "well, the council or
> whoever approved this procedure - they must want me to hose the cvs server."

So the important thing to realize is that it is not trivial to
determine when policy is 'dumb.'

I personally think the policy is very clear and effective; it makes
the council accountable and it essentially prevents what happened (the
council slacked off during an important meeting).  How else should we
punish them?  Is there any punishment that does not involve an
election?  I would entertain alternative punishments.  I would not
entertain 'changing policy and doing nothing' as that kind of implies
council members can basically miss any meetings without repercussions
and that is untrue in my reckoning.

>
> If the council does decide to hold new elections, could they at least make a
> point to nuke this bullet item in GLEP 39?  I think the whole slacker policy
> is a bit harsh in general - maybe it could be adjusted somewhat.  At the
> very least, there should be some policy regarding notice for meetings - if
> somebody is on vacation for two weeks it would be a bummer for them to be
> marked a slacker because they didn't hear about a meeting...
> --
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]

On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 14:12 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally,
> >> I don't want to vote for the council now.
> >
> > Then don't!  Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of those
> > who are represented to triumph?  If that will is to not hold an election,
> > wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it?
> 
> So minimally we would require a vote to determine 'the will of the
> represented'.  Note that this thread is insufficient to determine that
> (there are plenty of devs not participating in this thread).

What percentage of the developer base, and/or community is required to
call about a global vote for Gentoo?

Also where is there any policy requiring anything to be voted on? In
this case, the vote to decide if we should or should not elect a new
council. Enforce GLEP 39 clause/rule/policy or not. A vote would be more
out of respect, and democracy. Than out of policy or requirement.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 14:12 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally,
>> >> I don't want to vote for the council now.
>> >
>> > Then don't!  Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of those
>> > who are represented to triumph?  If that will is to not hold an election,
>> > wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it?
>>
>> So minimally we would require a vote to determine 'the will of the
>> represented'.  Note that this thread is insufficient to determine that
>> (there are plenty of devs not participating in this thread).
>
> What percentage of the developer base, and/or community is required to
> call about a global vote for Gentoo?

This is not documented anywhere as far as I can tell.  The 'glep' just
says we have to hold an election.  I have already spoken to a few of
the previous officials to see if they are interested in running a
council election.

It has been argued that the Council controls Gentoo; and for the
majority of cases I believe this is true.  The question benig do we
adhere to the existing policy or do we do something else.

The problem is basically that besides the council there is no other
body that has power (according to stated policy).  Befroe the council
Gentoo had 'the developers' and before 'the developers' Gentoo had TLP
Managers.

I would prefer that 'the developers' in this case take initiative to
hold a new election.  In the old republic sense 'the developers'
essentially realize that they will not agree on everything and thus
delegate their power and authority to a smaller group of people
(council) until such time as 'the developers' deem such a body unfit
to rule.  Bonus for us, there is a clause in the policy that states a
specific even where this is the case (said 50% attendance clause).

It is my understanding that the council continues to be the council
while 'the developers' hold an election for council positions.  The
only alternative to a whole election is unseating the members that did
not attend; this is explicitly forbidden by the 50% attendance clause.

>
> Also where is there any policy requiring anything to be voted on? In
> this case, the vote to decide if we should or should not elect a new
> council. Enforce GLEP 39 clause/rule/policy or not. A vote would be more
> out of respect, and democracy. Than out of policy or requirement.

There isn't one; I didn't mean to imply that we should vote on whether
we should hold an election or not.

My comment was meant to imply that the number of folks involved in
this thread is a meaningless statistic regarding what developers
actually think regarding this issue.

>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
> amd64/Java/Trustees
> Gentoo Foundation
>
>

I've begun poking the relevant election officials to see if they are
willing to participate in an election in the upcoming weeks.

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Josh Sled]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> writes:
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally,
>> I don't want to vote for the council now. 
>
> Then don't!  Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of those
> who are represented to triumph?  If that will is to not hold an election,
> wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it?

GLEP 39 doesn't state "if $slacker_meeting, vote to see if people want to
hold an election."


> Policies are important.  It is important that they be well thought out. It is
> also important that when a policy is dumb that people not blindly follow it.

When it's the case that a policy dumb, then people should raise that fact and
work to change the policy.  In some circumstances, the effects of the dumb
policy might be so dumb as for people to feel the need to arrange for
compensating action.  But just ignoring the rules is not a very good option.


> point to nuke this bullet item in GLEP 39?  I think the whole slacker policy
> is a bit harsh in general - maybe it could be adjusted somewhat.  At the very

I agree the single-slacker-meeting-forces-election rule is too harsh.

-- 
...jsled
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Simon Cooper]

As a random user, could I just make a couple of points?

I think it is agreed that the GLEP says there should be a re-election; 
the current discussion is to whether the GLEP should be followed. May I 
ask what the point of the GLEP was if parts of it are going to be 
ignored on a whim?

Yes, it is harsh, but that is what the rules say. Not obeying your /own/ 
rules when they are inconvenient sets a very bad precedent. If, at some 
point in the future, gentoo does get a slacker council, then when faced 
with being replaced they could say something like 'but you ignored the 
GLEP at this instance, and this is the same situation because of yadda 
yadda yadda...'. Even if what's being said is complete rubbish it will 
significantly slow down the process of getting a new council simply 
because there has been this one exception made. Furthermore, the reason 
given (there wasn't enough advertising about the meeting given out) is 
quite nebulous - 'enough advertising' can mean /anything/. Making this 
one exception also makes it easier for greater exceptions in the future 
(the whole 'slipperly slope' argument).	

If people don't like the clause, then the new council can vote to remove 
it. No one would disagree with that. But you _cannot_ simply ignore 
parts of GLEPs that turn out to be inconvenient. Doing so sets a bad 
precedent that could be a lot more damaging to gentoo in the future than 
the small inconvenience of having a council election a couple of months 
early, and indeed undermines the GLEP itself as something that is seen 
as optional. It will also ensure all council meetings are properly 
advertised in the future, which can only be a good thing.

Simon Cooper
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:46:37 +0100
Simon Cooper <thecoop@runbox.com> wrote:

> As a random user, could I just make a couple of points?
> 

I'm replying just to say I think you've summed it up pretty well.

> I think it is agreed that the GLEP says there should be a re-election; 
> the current discussion is to whether the GLEP should be followed. May I 
> ask what the point of the GLEP was if parts of it are going to be 
> ignored on a whim?
> 
> Yes, it is harsh, but that is what the rules say. Not obeying your /own/ 
> rules when they are inconvenient sets a very bad precedent. If, at some 
> point in the future, gentoo does get a slacker council, then when faced 
> with being replaced they could say something like 'but you ignored the 
> GLEP at this instance, and this is the same situation because of yadda 
> yadda yadda...'. Even if what's being said is complete rubbish it will 
> significantly slow down the process of getting a new council simply 
> because there has been this one exception made. Furthermore, the reason 
> given (there wasn't enough advertising about the meeting given out) is 
> quite nebulous - 'enough advertising' can mean /anything/. Making this 
> one exception also makes it easier for greater exceptions in the future 
> (the whole 'slipperly slope' argument).	
> 
> If people don't like the clause, then the new council can vote to remove 
> it. No one would disagree with that. But you _cannot_ simply ignore 
> parts of GLEPs that turn out to be inconvenient. Doing so sets a bad 
> precedent that could be a lot more damaging to gentoo in the future than 
> the small inconvenience of having a council election a couple of months 
> early, and indeed undermines the GLEP itself as something that is seen 
> as optional. It will also ensure all council meetings are properly 
> advertised in the future, which can only be a good thing.
> 
> Simon Cooper
> -- 
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 

Regards,
Ferris
- -- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgvgXUACgkQQa6M3+I///fpIwCfeEbzs/wkWrniUELagS7pVvay
QuIAoMt37RpSkEPCKbb4XjbDLvLzbBQA
=PGvG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Łukasz Damentko]

2008/5/18 Simon Cooper <thecoop@runbox.com>:

> I think it is agreed that the GLEP says there should be a re-election

> that is what the rules say

> Making this one exception also makes it easier for greater exceptions in the future

> If people don't like the clause, then the new council can vote to remove it.

>  you _cannot_ simply ignore parts of  GLEPs that turn out to be inconvenient.

Exactly my thoughts. Guys, please, let's just start gathering
nominations. The faster we're done with that, the better for the
project. Also, if you like the current council line up (like I do),
you can just vote on them again (should they decide to run) and elect
the same team once again.

--

Łukasz Damentko

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1957 bytes --]

Simon Cooper <thecoop@runbox.com> said:
> Yes, it is harsh, but that is what the rules say. Not obeying your /own/ 
> rules when they are inconvenient sets a very bad precedent. If, at some 
> point in the future, gentoo does get a slacker council, then when faced 
> with being replaced they could say something like 'but you ignored the GLEP 
> at this instance, and this is the same situation because of yadda yadda 
> yadda...'. Even if what's being said is complete rubbish it will 
> significantly slow down the process of getting a new council simply because 
> there has been this one exception made. Furthermore, the reason given 
> (there wasn't enough advertising about the meeting given out) is quite 
> nebulous - 'enough advertising' can mean /anything/. Making this one 
> exception also makes it easier for greater exceptions in the future (the 
> whole 'slipperly slope' argument).	
>
> If people don't like the clause, then the new council can vote to remove 
> it. No one would disagree with that. But you _cannot_ simply ignore parts 
> of GLEPs that turn out to be inconvenient. Doing so sets a bad precedent 
> that could be a lot more damaging to gentoo in the future than the small 
> inconvenience of having a council election a couple of months early, and 
> indeed undermines the GLEP itself as something that is seen as optional. It 
> will also ensure all council meetings are properly advertised in the 
> future, which can only be a good thing.

I also just wanted to say that you pretty much summed up what I was
going to send.  As one of the people that voted on this GLEP, I like
exactly how it is written, and we voted it in based on how it was
written.  Lets follow our own rules and stop debating on this so we can
move on please.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 01:02 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> As one of the people that voted on this GLEP, I like
> exactly how it is written, and we voted it in based on how it was
> written.  Lets follow our own rules and stop debating on this so we can
> move on please.

Part of the GLEP voted on, states that the policy/rule in question is a
global one. Of which all global matters of that nature fall under the
Council's rule. Per section B. Clearly stated. Thus the current council,
could technically do what they felt was best, and it could be
retroactive.

There is nothing in the GLEP stating the council does not have that
power. Or that the current council, can't amend that GLEP or act on
global issues. Even when facing possible replacement/punishment. There
are no restrictions, only punishment. With them as the supreme power
deciding upon global issues. Who is to enforce any punishment? When are
they stripped of global power?

So a partial, incomplete GLEP with some harsh punishments was approved.
Yet at the same time, not including any provision to strip the council
of their recently granted global powers. Like during times of
punishment/replacement. All of which was also approved by a past global
vote.

There is no requirement that any decision effecting global issues be
taken to the developer base for a vote. So exactly what policy are we
following here? Or not? If the current council elects to modify GLEP 39.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Peter Volkov]

В Вск, 18/05/2008 в 01:24 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. пишет:
> Part of the GLEP voted on, states that the policy/rule in question is
> a global one. Of which all global matters of that nature fall under
> the Council's rule. Per section B. Clearly stated. Thus the current
> council, could technically do what they felt was best, and it could be
> retroactive.

Although GLEP 39 does not states this explicitly common sense suggests
that there is zero sense in having policy for council if they can change
it retroactively. So I'd say that while not written this is implied.

-- 
Peter.

-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Although GLEP 39 does not states this explicitly common sense suggests
> that there is zero sense in having policy for council if they can change
> it retroactively. So I'd say that while not written this is implied.

That's one point of view. Another is that some policies have been
written in different times for different reasons, and may need to be
clarified or even updated to suit better the present situation. That's
the problem with time, it doesn't stand still and things happen
leading to situations changing.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1257 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 14:10 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Вск, 18/05/2008 в 01:24 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. пишет:
> > Part of the GLEP voted on, states that the policy/rule in question is
> > a global one. Of which all global matters of that nature fall under
> > the Council's rule. Per section B. Clearly stated. Thus the current
> > council, could technically do what they felt was best, and it could be
> > retroactive.
> 
> Although GLEP 39 does not states this explicitly common sense suggests
> that there is zero sense in having policy for council if they can change
> it retroactively. So I'd say that while not written this is implied.

Ok, so are we following common sense or policy?

If it's common sense, why would it have been so hard to clearly state
and document the above? Policies are stated, not assumed. We have way to
many undocumented, word of mouth, common sense policies. If we are going
to run around enforcing things. It must be documented, not assumed.

FYI, IMHO common sense says we give them a chance to make up for the
meeting. Before rush to punishment. So who's common sense is correct per
policy? Mine or yours?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Peter Volkov]

В Вск, 18/05/2008 в 13:20 +0200, Denis Dupeyron пишет: 
> That's one point of view. Another is that some policies have been
> written in different times for different reasons, and may need to be
> clarified or even updated to suit better the present situation. That's
> the problem with time, it doesn't stand still and things happen
> leading to situations changing.

I agree that policies should be updated. But not retroactively.


В Вск, 18/05/2008 в 11:16 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. пишет:
> Ok, so are we following common sense or policy?

Policy whatever that states and common sense in other cases...

> If it's common sense, why would it have been so hard to clearly state
> and document the above?

As I understand Ciaran for historical reasons. But what we should do in
case less then 50% of council attend the meeting is there.

> Policies are stated, not assumed. We have way to many undocumented,
> word of mouth, common sense policies. If we are going to run around
> enforcing things. It must be documented, not assumed.

Sure. And I think that somebody should suggest council something
concrete on how to update the policy. But this does not change the fact
that what happened was at times we had different policy.

> FYI, IMHO common sense says we give them a chance to make up for the
> meeting. Before rush to punishment. So who's common sense is correct per
> policy? Mine or yours?

No, this's not punishment. That's just procedural act we should take to
be sure that policies we thought about work.


Well, too many mails here so I think now I should decrease the noise
here and shut up and wait for council actions.

-- 
Peter.

-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 278 bytes --]

"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ok, so are we following common sense or policy?

If there's a difference between the two, I would think that the policy
should be updated to reflect common sense.

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 497 bytes --]


On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 08:06 -0400, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Ok, so are we following common sense or policy?
> 
> If there's a difference between the two, I would think that the policy
> should be updated to reflect common sense.
 Who's common sense?  You and I might differ on what is common sense. :)

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:18:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> [..] you're locked into what's now known as GLEP 39
> until there's a global vote to replace it with something else. 

Source? I don't see anything in glep 39 that says so. So as far i
understand it glep 39 is just another glep and can be modified like
any other glep.

Please be so kind to clarify the basis of your statement.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 880 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:56:49 +0200
Wernfried Haas <amne@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:18:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > [..] you're locked into what's now known as GLEP 39
> > until there's a global vote to replace it with something else. 
> 
> Source? I don't see anything in glep 39 that says so. So as far i
> understand it glep 39 is just another glep and can be modified like
> any other glep.

For the zillionth time... GLEP 39 was not a GLEP. It was one of a
collection of proposals (that were not GLEPs) that were voted upon by a
global vote. It was then *later* made available in GLEP form by Grant
for convenience, but it wasn't accepted as a GLEP.

Unfortunately, it seems that people are misinterpreting this -- it
might have been better to document it as 'The Council's Constitution'
or somesuch...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2429 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:56:49 +0200
> Wernfried Haas <amne@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:18:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > [..] you're locked into what's now known as GLEP 39
> > > until there's a global vote to replace it with something else. 
> > 
> > Source? I don't see anything in glep 39 that says so. So as far i
> > understand it glep 39 is just another glep and can be modified like
> > any other glep.
> 
> For the zillionth time... GLEP 39 was not a GLEP. It was one of a
> collection of proposals (that were not GLEPs) that were voted upon by a
> global vote. It was then *later* made available in GLEP form by Grant
> for convenience, but it wasn't accepted as a GLEP.

Ok, but where is it stated that changes, or amendments can only be
done/approved by a global vote? As it stands now, it clearly states
global issues are to be decided by the council. With no conditions or
stipulations.

It's understood how it came about, although I was not around at the
time. However once it's been approved. It's not clear who has the
authority to enforce it. Or if/when the council is stripped of power, in
situations where they are being punished and/or replaced. Much less
which global matters, like amending a GLEP ( or what ever you want to
clal it ), can they directly vote and act upon. Or which ones must be
brought to the developer base for a vote.

Also correct me if I am wrong, but this was voted in before there was a
council. Thus developers had no other way, other than a meeting of TLP
managers to decide upon global issues. So IMHO once voted upon and a
council was created to decided upon global matters. Individual power has
been given up, and passed on from developers and TLP managers, to
council members. Just as we pass on power in govt to our elected
representatives.

> Unfortunately, it seems that people are misinterpreting this -- it
> might have been better to document it as 'The Council's Constitution'
> or somesuch...

That would have been better. Also if the GLEP went into more detail, and
had other provisions. Like stripping the council of their power in a
situation like this one. Presently till replaced, if replaced, they
still have full power to decide upon global issues.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1297 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:26:00 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > For the zillionth time... GLEP 39 was not a GLEP. It was one of a
> > collection of proposals (that were not GLEPs) that were voted upon
> > by a global vote. It was then *later* made available in GLEP form
> > by Grant for convenience, but it wasn't accepted as a GLEP.
> 
> Ok, but where is it stated that changes, or amendments can only be
> done/approved by a global vote? As it stands now, it clearly states
> global issues are to be decided by the council. With no conditions or
> stipulations.

Look back to when it was voted in. You'll probably need -core archives
for this.

> > Unfortunately, it seems that people are misinterpreting this -- it
> > might have been better to document it as 'The Council's
> > Constitution' or somesuch...
> 
> That would have been better. Also if the GLEP went into more detail,
> and had other provisions. Like stripping the council of their power
> in a situation like this one. Presently till replaced, if replaced,
> they still have full power to decide upon global issues.

The problem is, none of this was written under the assumption that the
Council would try to misbehave and avoid following the rules...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1340 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Look back to when it was voted in. You'll probably need -core archives
> for this.

Ok, will take some time.

> The problem is, none of this was written under the assumption that the
> Council would try to misbehave and avoid following the rules...

Isn't the entire harsh nature to address issues within the council?
Meetings being held in private, those in power slacking, etc. Things you
previously stated here. So if the document is written with punishments,
that's almost expecting the council to misbehave. Or there would be no
reason for such provisions.

Then it also should have clarified in times when they council is to be
replaced, or punished. That they are stripped of their power. That
despite having ability to decide upon global matters. They can't decide
their own fate. Which the document does not cover at all. Which is a
bigger area to address, than any punishment.

Who is to enforce any punishment, if they decide on global matters? When
is their global power stripped? When can they or can't they act
retroactively on global matters?

What's the difference between a global matter that effects Gentoo, and a
global matter that effects only the council?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:40:35 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The problem is, none of this was written under the assumption that
> > the Council would try to misbehave and avoid following the rules...
> 
> Isn't the entire harsh nature to address issues within the council?
> Meetings being held in private, those in power slacking, etc. Things
> you previously stated here. So if the document is written with
> punishments, that's almost expecting the council to misbehave. Or
> there would be no reason for such provisions.

It was written under the expectation that at least some Council members
wouldn't do their jobs properly some of the time. It was not written
under the expectation that the Council as a whole would try to find
loopholes to avoid facing the consequences of them screwing up.

You'll note that Council members are always free to stand for
reelection, so the punishment is decided by the developer base as a
whole, and not by policy.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2739 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:40:35 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > The problem is, none of this was written under the assumption that
> > > the Council would try to misbehave and avoid following the rules...
> > 
> > Isn't the entire harsh nature to address issues within the council?
> > Meetings being held in private, those in power slacking, etc. Things
> > you previously stated here. So if the document is written with
> > punishments, that's almost expecting the council to misbehave. Or
> > there would be no reason for such provisions.
> 
> It was written under the expectation that at least some Council members
> wouldn't do their jobs properly some of the time. It was not written
> under the expectation that the Council as a whole would try to find
> loopholes to avoid facing the consequences of them screwing up.

This clause punishes all for mistakes of 50%. So that is punishing the
council as a whole. It's not a matter of loop holes. That would imply
that stated policy creates gaps. This is a problem where an unstated
policy has left a gap. Very different.

> You'll note that Council members are always free to stand for
> reelection, so the punishment is decided by the developer base as a
> whole, and not by policy.

That is a stupid formality then and just goes to show/prove how half ass
this entire thing is. What is the point of having an election if the
same people end up running? Who's to say they don't do that again?

What benefit does Gentoo get by interrupting a council, holding
elections, just for the same people to run again. Which would just
extend their term. Not to mention screw up our time lines for elections.
That is just totally stupid and futile IMHO. Allot of work doing an
election over 2+ months for what purpose?

If we are punishing those on the council. They should not have a chance
to re-run. Or at least those in the 50% not attending. Should not be
allowed to run again. Those that were there, doing their job. Shouldn't
be punished.

So at best it should be a partial election to replace some. Not all. But
again this document didn't spend any time going into detail. But did
spend time talking about things really not relevant to policy. But the
past, etc.

If we allow the same ones to run again. Then what's the difference
between that, and allowing them a chance to make up for the missed
meeting? Which a 15 day clause requiring any meeting be made up for,
before punishment. Would have made much more sense, been more balanced,
less harsh, and fair all around.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3788 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:02:22 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It was written under the expectation that at least some Council
> > members wouldn't do their jobs properly some of the time. It was
> > not written under the expectation that the Council as a whole would
> > try to find loopholes to avoid facing the consequences of them
> > screwing up.
> 
> This clause punishes all for mistakes of 50%. So that is punishing the
> council as a whole. It's not a matter of loop holes. That would imply
> that stated policy creates gaps. This is a problem where an unstated
> policy has left a gap. Very different.

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.

> > You'll note that Council members are always free to stand for
> > reelection, so the punishment is decided by the developer base as a
> > whole, and not by policy.
> 
> That is a stupid formality then and just goes to show/prove how half
> ass this entire thing is. What is the point of having an election if
> the same people end up running? Who's to say they don't do that again?

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.

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 benefit does Gentoo get by interrupting a council, holding
> elections, just for the same people to run again. Which would just
> extend their term. Not to mention screw up our time lines for
> elections. That is just totally stupid and futile IMHO. Allot of work
> doing an election over 2+ months for what purpose?

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.

You might as well say "what's the point in holding yearly elections if
the same people end up standing?".

> If we are punishing those on the council. They should not have a
> chance to re-run. Or at least those in the 50% not attending. Should
> not be allowed to run again. Those that were there, doing their job.
> Shouldn't be punished.

Having to hold an election isn't being punished. Not being reelected is
being punished.

> So at best it should be a partial election to replace some. Not all.
> But again this document didn't spend any time going into detail. But
> did spend time talking about things really not relevant to policy.
> But the past, etc.

Those things were relevant to the voting for the proposal.

> If we allow the same ones to run again. Then what's the difference
> between that, and allowing them a chance to make up for the missed
> meeting? Which a 15 day clause requiring any meeting be made up for,
> before punishment. Would have made much more sense, been more
> balanced, less harsh, and fair all around.

They can run. But anyone who's deemed to have screwed up too badly
won't be reelected.

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.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3212 bytes --]

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.
> 
> 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 != 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 :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:26:00 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, it seems that people are misinterpreting this -- it
>>> might have been better to document it as 'The Council's
>>> Constitution' or somesuch...
>> That would have been better. Also if the GLEP went into more detail,
>> and had other provisions. Like stripping the council of their power
>> in a situation like this one. Presently till replaced, if replaced,
>> they still have full power to decide upon global issues.
> 
> The problem is, none of this was written under the assumption that the
> Council would try to misbehave and avoid following the rules...
> 

Uh - perhaps we should save our zealotry for constitutions for some time 
when the Council is actually misbehaving?  This really seems like a 
tempest in a teapot.

If the council decided to start holding meetings in private, denied any 
forum for dissent, began booting people merely for disagreeing, and 
began taking the distro in a direction most devs don't like then I'd be 
all for having a gentoo insurrection.

It seems like the general consensus on this discussion is that the worst 
offense committed by the council was to miss a meeting time, and that as 
a result we have to go through a new election process immediately.  I 
can probably think of a half-dozen issues that would be of benefit to 
Gentoo if the council showed strong leadership, and punishing itself for 
missing a meeting really doesn't end up on that list.

Honestly - I think that Gentoo is about as strong as I've seen it in 
recent days of late.  The trustees are steadily cleaning house, the 
mailing lists have been almost entirely flame-free (even this discussion 
is managing to stay relatively cordial), and very contentious issues 
like PMS or alternate package managers have actually been discussed 
fairly enthusiastically on -dev of late.  I haven't seen too many people 
roasted on bugzilla for making mistakes lately either.  Are we just so 
used to having some kind of major clash in Gentoo that we feel the need 
to invent one since it has been dull for a few months?

Gentoo is a community of moderate size.  If we had thousands of devs I'd 
be concerned about having a constitution of sorts so that a small 
minority doesn't get trampled by a majority.  At its present size, 
however, just about any dev is free to do all kinds of stuff with the 
distro as long as they don't risk major breakage.  Gosh - we have one of 
the two major desktop environment herds running in an overlay that uses 
an EAPI that I assume isn't even supported by portage.  I think we're 
starting to see signs of new innovation and that is a good thing for 
Gentoo - we've always tended to be a fairly conceptually cutting-edge 
distro that still manages to "just work".

I think that what has led to these recent developments is a realization 
that technical achievement can only exist when we foster an environment 
where people can contribute while still having fun and not getting 
skewered.  I think that a little bit of leniency and practical common 
sense has to go with that.  If we go back to bashing people over the 
head with policies just because we have something to point to 
demonstrating that we're right and somebody else is wrong, then I think 
we'll be giving up some of what we've gained in the last 9 months or so.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 854 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:13:45 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Uh - perhaps we should save our zealotry for constitutions for some
> time when the Council is actually misbehaving?  This really seems
> like a tempest in a teapot.
> 
> If the council decided to start holding meetings in private, denied
> any forum for dissent, began booting people merely for disagreeing,
> and began taking the distro in a direction most devs don't like then
> I'd be all for having a gentoo insurrection.

Oh, I do hope that was said with irony. Funnily enough, the Council
holding meetings in private (ask them about their secret channel on
oftc and their meetings with musikc), denying dissent and booting people
arbitrarily is exactly what lead to them holding the second meeting
that started this discussion.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1786 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:18 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:13:45 -0400
> Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Uh - perhaps we should save our zealotry for constitutions for some
> > time when the Council is actually misbehaving?  This really seems
> > like a tempest in a teapot.
> > 
> > If the council decided to start holding meetings in private, denied
> > any forum for dissent, began booting people merely for disagreeing,
> > and began taking the distro in a direction most devs don't like then
> > I'd be all for having a gentoo insurrection.
> 
> Oh, I do hope that was said with irony. Funnily enough, the Council
> holding meetings in private (ask them about their secret channel on
> oftc and their meetings with musikc), denying dissent and booting people
> arbitrarily is exactly what lead to them holding the second meeting
> that started this discussion.

Another very good point. IMHO the CoC falls under the GSC which the
trustees/foundation enforces not the council. So they topic at hand for
the current council is not of technical nature and thus should not be on
their plate. Which the subsequent meeting of a topic/subject that should
not fall to them.

It's no wonder a technical council, did not show up to a meeting to
discuss social issues. Duh ;) Part of the reason I dislike punishment
for this so much. This was not a technical meeting, where a major
technical decision lie on the table going unresolved.

Has this missed meeting effected Gentoo's technical progress in any way
shape or form. Other than all of us wasting allot of time discussing BS
stuff rather than writing code and/or improving Gentoo technically.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 913 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:38:14 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It's no wonder a technical council, did not show up to a meeting to
> discuss social issues. Duh ;) Part of the reason I dislike punishment
> for this so much. This was not a technical meeting, where a major
> technical decision lie on the table going unresolved.

The Council holding secret meetings and collaborating with the devrel
lead behind the rest of devrel's backs is certainly a major issue... As
for technical... The Council got itself involved in non-technical
things by kicking this whole mess off in the first place.

You'll note that Diego has said that he thinks it's the most important
thing the Council has ever done (although the Council has also said
that it wasn't them that did it -- one of the things that they were
supposed to be clarifying at the meeting...).

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2582 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:38:14 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It's no wonder a technical council, did not show up to a meeting to
> > discuss social issues. Duh ;) Part of the reason I dislike punishment
> > for this so much. This was not a technical meeting, where a major
> > technical decision lie on the table going unresolved.
> 
> The Council holding secret meetings and collaborating with the devrel
> lead behind the rest of devrel's backs is certainly a major issue...

Then that should be grounds for removal. Not using that behind another
clause of them missing a meeting to enforce what you want.

For example, when I got a ticket for wreckless driving. When the police
officer was accusing me of speeding, unsafe lane changes, and failure to
use my signal. When I took it to court, even the judge stated. They
could not use wreckless driving to encompass and enforce other
infractions I might have committed.

Thus it seems the real issue at hand is aspects of how the council has
conducted itself. With this missed meeting, as just an excuse to
forcibly bring about change there. Which only a small fraction seem to
want or have issue with. Some of which aren't devs, so that fraction is
even smaller.

>  As
> for technical... The Council got itself involved in non-technical
> things by kicking this whole mess off in the first place.

Which council? Did this council create the CoC or make the matter fall
under the council?

> You'll note that Diego has said that he thinks it's the most important
> thing the Council has ever done

Is that an individual statement, or one coming from the entire council?
Was he stating that representing the council or himself?

>  (although the Council has also said
> that it wasn't them that did it -- one of the things that they were
> supposed to be clarifying at the meeting...).

Well I think this is where the trustees should step in a bit. We likely
need to meet with the council and see why they feel the CoC should fall
under them, rather than the GSC and under the trustees/foundation. I
have disliked such matters falling under them since before I was even a
trustee or considered such. It's just not technical stuff.

I think the reason the CoC fell under the council, was because of a MIA
board of trustees in past years. Also could be because the council is
seen has having power, and the trustees?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[David Leverton]

On Sunday 18 May 2008 16:26:00 William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > For the zillionth time... GLEP 39 was not a GLEP. It was one of a
> > collection of proposals (that were not GLEPs) that were voted upon by a
> > global vote. It was then *later* made available in GLEP form by Grant
> > for convenience, but it wasn't accepted as a GLEP.
>
> Ok, but where is it stated that changes, or amendments can only be
> done/approved by a global vote? As it stands now, it clearly states
> global issues are to be decided by the council. With no conditions or
> stipulations.

On Sunday 18 May 2008 17:38:14 William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Another very good point. IMHO the CoC falls under the GSC which the
> trustees/foundation enforces not the council. So they topic at hand for
> the current council is not of technical nature and thus should not be on
> their plate. Which the subsequent meeting of a topic/subject that should
> not fall to them.

So is GLEP 39 within the Council's domain or not?  It seems pretty 
non-technical to me, global issue or not.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:13:45 -0400
> Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> If the council decided to start holding meetings in private, denied
>> any forum for dissent, began booting people merely for disagreeing,
>> and began taking the distro in a direction most devs don't like then
>> I'd be all for having a gentoo insurrection.
>
> Oh, I do hope that was said with irony. Funnily enough, the Council
> holding meetings in private (ask them about their secret channel on
> oftc and their meetings with musikc),

I remember people getting confused and talking about how the council
wants to "Moving all gentoo channels to oftc" however, that was
clarified.  "having a secret channel for meetings on oftc" seems to be
similar in confusion. Allow me to clarify this as well:

Your statement mixes two meanings of the word "meeting" which causes confusion:
a) Council meetings
b) A (random?) group of people

The former needs to be announced, and happen in public. The latter can
happen anywhere. Surely we can't say gentoo council members are
holding a "meeting" if they happen to meet at a FOSS conference
somewhere? ;)

Besides, as I understand it:

1) The channel was a public channel on oftc where (some of?) the
gentoo council members idled because one of the council members could
not come onto FreeNode due to personal reasons.
2) Council Meetings were held on #gentoo-council @ FreeNode, with a
proxy for said council member who could not connect to FreeNode.
3)  Then the issue of "meetings with musikc" -- my vote goes for *not*
counting /query as a "meeting" ;)

> denying dissent and booting people
> arbitrarily is exactly what lead to them holding the second meeting
> that started this discussion.

I thought the reason for the meeting was an appeal for retirement done
by devrel? Sort of like going to a higher court for an appeal?


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 12:13 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
>
> It seems like the general consensus on this discussion is that the worst 
> offense committed by the council was to miss a meeting time, and that as 
> a result we have to go through a new election process immediately.  I 
> can probably think of a half-dozen issues that would be of benefit to 
> Gentoo if the council showed strong leadership, and punishing itself for 
> missing a meeting really doesn't end up on that list.

+1

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it seems that people are misinterpreting this

I think you're underestimating the people who are participating to
this list. They're not all twats like me. Some of us maybe didn't know
about the history behind GLEP 39, but thanks to you kindly reminding
them they now know. Have you at one point wondered if by any chance
they would simply all disagree with you ?

> it might have been better to document it as 'The Council's Constitution'
> or somesuch...

True. On the other hand it was written as a GLEP. And whatever the
history behind it, there is no provision anywhere for a special
treatment of GLEP 39. Unless you can tell us where to find this
particular policy that I referred to as the eleventh commandment.

Now let me sum up. You want the council to have a strict application
of a policy that was written in a different time for a different issue
than the present one. On the other hand, you don't consider the
council has enough power to modify a GLEP based on your personal
interpretation of the history behind the GLEP in question. We've
certainly seen you more consistent than this before.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:30:26 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > it might have been better to document it as 'The Council's
> > Constitution' or somesuch...
> 
> True. On the other hand it was written as a GLEP.

No it wasn't. If all you have to offer is deliberate lies like this,
please stay out of it.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> No it wasn't. If all you have to offer is deliberate lies like this,
> please stay out of it.

You know perfectly well what I meant. And I would suggest you moderate
your tone a bit. This in not the first incident from your part in this
thread, make sure it's the last one.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:40:55 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > No it wasn't. If all you have to offer is deliberate lies like this,
> > please stay out of it.
> 
> You know perfectly well what I meant. And I would suggest you moderate
> your tone a bit. This in not the first incident from your part in this
> thread, make sure it's the last one.

You are deliberately posting information that you know is untrue and
deliberately using that information to form bad conclusions. You are
the one who is misbehaving here, and I hope you will have the decency
to retract all your claims that are based upon deliberately invalid
premises.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 557 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:30:26 +0200
> "Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > it might have been better to document it as 'The Council's
> > > Constitution' or somesuch...
> > 
> > True. On the other hand it was written as a GLEP.
> 
> No it wasn't. If all you have to offer is deliberate lies like this,
> please stay out of it.

If it's not a GLEP then what is it then? What are we following or not?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:42:08 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:30:26 +0200
> > "Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > it might have been better to document it as 'The Council's
> > > > Constitution' or somesuch...
> > > 
> > > True. On the other hand it was written as a GLEP.
> > 
> > No it wasn't. If all you have to offer is deliberate lies like this,
> > please stay out of it.
> 
> If it's not a GLEP then what is it then? What are we following or not?

That's already been answered in this thread far too many times. Please
read before posting.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1593 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:42:08 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > If it's not a GLEP then what is it then? What are we following or not?
> 
> That's already been answered in this thread far too many times. Please
> read before posting.

I have read and re-read. It's only until recent postings/comments are we
starting to say this is not a GLEP. It's not part of the Bylaws. So what
is it? How official is it? Who enforces it? 

Re-reading, just brings me across more reference to it being a GLEP.
Which again, in later threads, it's being mentioned it's not a GLEP.
What else do we have document and policy wise?

Also if it's a constitution, or such for the council. Why is like ~70%
of the document, talking about the past. Personal point of view from
those writing the document. Things other than what section B is, and
declares.

If more time was spent on clarifying section B, and less on talking
about the past, problems, personal input/opinion. Things that would make
this a much more official document, what ever it is. Then this mess
would not exist, and we would have set policies and procedures to
follow. Instead we have a partial punishment, that doesn't mention at
all how to go about enforcing it. As in council is stripped of power.

Does the current council, still hold/wield any power from now until they
are replaced? What is the extent/limitations of that power in the
intern?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2428 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:55:46 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:42:08 -0400
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If it's not a GLEP then what is it then? What are we following or
> > > not?
> > 
> > That's already been answered in this thread far too many times.
> > Please read before posting.
> 
> I have read and re-read. It's only until recent postings/comments are
> we starting to say this is not a GLEP. It's not part of the Bylaws.
> So what is it? How official is it? Who enforces it?

It's effectively in a class of its own. So far as I know, it's the only
policy document that's been accepted based upon a global vote.

> Re-reading, just brings me across more reference to it being a GLEP.

It's referred to as 'GLEP 39' because that's where you find it. This is
unfortunate.

> Also if it's a constitution, or such for the council. Why is like ~70%
> of the document, talking about the past. Personal point of view from
> those writing the document. Things other than what section B is, and
> declares.

What's now called 'GLEP 39' was originally an emailed proposal written
by Grant as one of the things upon which developers could vote, with a
second email from me proposing the slacker clauses merged in.

The actual proposal voted in by developers was a text file in my ~ on
dev.g.o, which was just Grant's email with my additions.

> If more time was spent on clarifying section B, and less on talking
> about the past, problems, personal input/opinion. Things that would
> make this a much more official document, what ever it is. Then this
> mess would not exist, and we would have set policies and procedures to
> follow.

But that wasn't what was voted in.

> Instead we have a partial punishment, that doesn't mention at all
> how to go about enforcing it. As in council is stripped of power.

It says exactly how to go about enforcing it. An election has to be
held within a month of the meeting, in the same way that otherwise the
council has to hold an election once a year.

> Does the current council, still hold/wield any power from now until
> they are replaced? What is the extent/limitations of that power in the
> intern?

There's nothing about that in the accepted proposal.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2441 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:05 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> It's effectively in a class of its own. So far as I know, it's the only
> policy document that's been accepted based upon a global vote.

Ok, a global vote, that empowered and created the council. Which seems
to pass on that global authority under this document to the council.
What global matters can the council decide upon? And which ones require
all developers to vote? When and where is the line drawn there?

> What's now called 'GLEP 39' was originally an emailed proposal written
> by Grant as one of the things upon which developers could vote, with a
> second email from me proposing the slacker clauses merged in.
> 
> The actual proposal voted in by developers was a text file in my ~ on
> dev.g.o, which was just Grant's email with my additions.

Ok, but once it was voted in. Who has global power then? Developers or
the council? Who decides upon global decisions?

> But that wasn't what was voted in.

Correct, and what was, to my understanding and re-reading the document
more times than I care to. Says the council has 100% power over all
global matters. Past, present, and future, period. No ifs ands or buts.

> It says exactly how to go about enforcing it.

Are they stripped of power? Do the trustees then call for an election?
Who decides on global matters in the intern? Simply stating they are to
be replaced, and calling for an election is not enforcement. That's
partial at best.

>  An election has to be
> held within a month of the meeting, in the same way that otherwise the
> council has to hold an election once a year.

That would imply that from day one after missed meeting. We have
nominations, etc so that an election can start and proceed within a
month. Holding an election, is not starting an election. So if stated an
election must be held within a month. That's not a practical time line,
since we have a 2+ month election process.

So what happens over the next 2 months? No council meetings? No council?
Do those that are to be replaced still hold office/power?

> There's nothing about that in the accepted proposal.

Exactly, so there is nothing saying they do or do not have the power do
change that document/policy/glep. Or any other global matter. Even when
facing possible punishment and replacement.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:34:24 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:30:26 +0200
> "Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > it might have been better to document it as 'The Council's
> > > Constitution' or somesuch...
> > 
> > True. On the other hand it was written as a GLEP.
> 
> No it wasn't. If all you have to offer is deliberate lies like this,
> please stay out of it.
> 
> -- 
> Ciaran McCreesh

Let me try to express this slightly differently.  And I was around when
we voted on the various proposals for the rules for Council, and I did
vote for the one which later became GLEP 39.

We did not vote on it as a GLEP to accept or reject.  We had an
"election" following normal voting procedures on dev.gentoo.org, and
this was the winner from among several. I don't recall how the policy
chosen by the community was transformed into the form of a GLEP, and I
don't know that it matters much.  If you are curious, both Grant and
Ciaran can answer (and doubtless a few others, both developers and
interested bystanders).

Thus, what is now GLEP 39 represents the developers' views of the
appropriate rules for Council to follow at the time of the vote (which
was some time in 2005, I believe).  Since then, it's been sitting there
for all to read, and no one has ever felt the need to propose changes.

So, either people don't care about policies for Council (which does not
seem to be the case) or no one has ever seen any problems in the policy
requiring changes.  This makes it a bit puzzling why it's a big deal
when something comes up which activates a clause in the policy (when
the requirement affects Council itself.  After all, this entire policy
tells us the rules for how Council works.  That's what it's about.)

- -- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgwVTwACgkQQa6M3+I///cAVQCg1PxpOCSXbDNE0IQJv3mlWv4+
ijwAn29SKLcwacijA+R7hHmtQ5GxuXOb
=Kv+4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:11 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
>
> So, either people don't care about policies for Council (which does not
> seem to be the case)

Not sure about that. There are currently how many Gentoo Developers?
What percentage is commenting here?

I never read the GLEP till this came up. I suspect most others are in
the same boat. It's not like part of our recruitment process requires
people to read all GLEPs. So it should not be assumed people read or
care about them :)


>  or no one has ever seen any problems in the policy
> requiring changes.  This makes it a bit puzzling why it's a big deal
> when something comes up which activates a clause in the policy (when
> the requirement affects Council itself.  After all, this entire policy
> tells us the rules for how Council works.  That's what it's about.)

That's the nature of open source. No one cares till you do. Things are
ignored till one cares about it. Then everyone else has opinions. Thus
this never came up before, so no one cared. Now that it has, a very
small fraction cares. A vast majority is....

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1066 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 14:17 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:24:18PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:11 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > >
> > > So, either people don't care about policies for Council (which does not
> > > seem to be the case)
> > 
> > Not sure about that. There are currently how many Gentoo Developers?
> > What percentage is commenting here?
>     You might be forgetting that it isn't a requirement for devs to be
>     subscribed to -project. All they need to subscribe to is -core and
>     (maybe?) -dev-announce.

Happen to notice the subject? It started on -dev ml. I am pretty sure
others are aware. But just don't care. Again unless it's technical most
of our developer base won't care. Even then unless the technical aspects
have effect on them, they still might not care.

Granted we could post to -core and -dev-announce just to see if anyone
else wants to chime in. If not then?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Roy Bamford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.05.15 21:49, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
[snip]
> 
> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> 
>     If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
>     new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
>     year' is then reset from that point.
> 
> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> 
> Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? 
> I look forward to hearing your advice.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> -- 
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
Donnie,

The council have met monthly as required by the GLEP.  This meeting is 
single topic about policy, it neither requires to be in public, nor 
does it require anyone other than -council. A closed session or emails 
or teleconference would be quite in order for determining and agreeing 
policy.

Forcing an election over this issue, is in effect, a vote of no 
confidence in our council   

Delaying the policy setting for three months, until a new council is 
elected (1 month nominations, 1 month elections, a few weeks for admin) 
is not in the best interests of Gentoo, nor those whose appeals will be 
delayed.

While the present council would remain in office until replaced, they 
could hardly make a ruling on the very issue that forced the vote of no 
confidence.

An election now, over this, is just silly. 

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm writing as an individual developer, not 
on behalf of any office or team I am a part of.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgsqt8ACgkQTE4/y7nJvasTCwCbBmfHQhQaKS+yh4EXtl5Z/FMw
2NYAoJ5pGK5DD6SjX36sZXE0czXJzdpG
=kC4P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 347 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:27:53 +0100
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The council have met monthly as required by the GLEP.

Nope. The GLEP requires that there's at least one open meeting per
month. It also, as a separate requirement, forces a reelection whenever
a meeting has less than 50% attendance.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]

On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 22:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:27:53 +0100
> Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The council have met monthly as required by the GLEP.
> 
> Nope. The GLEP requires that there's at least one open meeting per
> month. It also, as a separate requirement, forces a reelection whenever
> a meeting has less than 50% attendance.

I think the GLEP is a little harsh there. It likely should be amended or
revised. To allow them the opportunity to re-schedule the meeting. Make
up for their mistake. Rather than rush straight to punishment.

We all make mistakes, and I think so far they have done a good job and
earned a little leeway. But I am in no way shape or form, advocating we
not follow our own policies. But at the same time, we must use common
sense.

I think the GLEP is a good start, with some revisions it can be even
better :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1689 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:45:35 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I think the GLEP is a little harsh there. It likely should be amended
> or revised. To allow them the opportunity to re-schedule the meeting.
> Make up for their mistake. Rather than rush straight to punishment.

The GLEP was deliberately harsh, and was voted in based upon that
harshness. Developers also had the option of voting for the GLEP but
without the slacker clauses, but they chose (by a substantial margin)
not to.

> We all make mistakes, and I think so far they have done a good job and
> earned a little leeway. But I am in no way shape or form, advocating
> we not follow our own policies. But at the same time, we must use
> common sense.
> 
> I think the GLEP is a good start, with some revisions it can be even
> better :)

Revisions to the GLEP pretty much require a global vote anyway, since
that was how the original GLEP was selected.

For those not aware, the "how the Council is run" stuff was decided by
global vote, not by approval of previous or current management. It
wasn't written or approved as a GLEP, but it's listed as a GLEP for
historical purposes and to make it easy to find.

Also for those not aware... The reason for the slacker clauses was that
prior to that, Gentoo was managed by a rather bizarrely selected group
of individuals (effectively, hardened and infra had representatives, the
tree didn't, for example) who mostly communicated via a closed mailing
list and who were quite happy disappearing for months on end and only
showing up when one of their pet irrelevant causes was under discussion.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --]

On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 23:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Also for those not aware... The reason for the slacker clauses was that
> prior to that, Gentoo was managed by a rather bizarrely selected group
> of individuals (effectively, hardened and infra had representatives, the
> tree didn't, for example) who mostly communicated via a closed mailing
> list and who were quite happy disappearing for months on end and only
> showing up when one of their pet irrelevant causes was under discussion.

Do those reason still stand? Or has there been enough history of other
behavior and more diverse councils operating in the public since then?

Almost seems like we might need to revisit this. I am not saying I mind
harshness, when due. But seems there is to little room for mistakes.
First mistake, and all are gone.

If we need to take it to a global vote, then so be it. Seems like a vote
is coming either way :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> 
>     If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
>     new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
>     year' is then reset from that point.
> 
> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> 
> Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? I 
> look forward to hearing your advice.
> 

Did this meeting have sufficient notice to be considered an official 
meeting?  Normally bylaws that govern matters like these also stipulate 
that meetings have a certain notice process to ensure that everybody 
knows about them.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 803 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:29:56 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Did this meeting have sufficient notice to be considered an official 
> meeting?  Normally bylaws that govern matters like these also
> stipulate that meetings have a certain notice process to ensure that
> everybody knows about them.

The bylaws that govern this matter are GLEP 39. GLEP 39 lets the Council
decide when they hold meetings and how they go about it (so long as
they at least have one open meeting per month). The Council decided at
the end of their previous meeting to hold a second meeting, so it
clearly counts -- it wasn't like it was one person saying "we're having
a meeting in five minutes because I say so, and if people don't show up
they get slacker marks!"...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:29:56 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> > 
> >     If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
> >     new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
> >     year' is then reset from that point.
> > 
> > musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> > meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> > 
> > Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? I 
> > look forward to hearing your advice.
> > 
> 
> Did this meeting have sufficient notice to be considered an official 
> meeting?  Normally bylaws that govern matters like these also stipulate 
> that meetings have a certain notice process to ensure that everybody 
> knows about them.

It was announced at the last meeting, so it had one week notice.  As
for intent, you'd have to ask g2boojum and ciaranm because they wrote
it.  But the wording in the GLEP could hardly be clearer.

Regards,
Ferris

> -- 
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 


- -- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgsrVIACgkQQa6M3+I///dLfACeLzlLaP3a1+MCFI7/BElz1HbB
LjIAoKmcwlfkvamQjWAZ9J1geonZ0mUY
=Q1B7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:29:56 -0400
> Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>> Did this meeting have sufficient notice to be considered an official 
>> meeting?  Normally bylaws that govern matters like these also stipulate 
>> that meetings have a certain notice process to ensure that everybody 
>> knows about them.
> 
> It was announced at the last meeting, so it had one week notice.  

Yes, but was everybody there?  If not the only effective notice was in 
the summary.  I'm not sure that everybody would have necessarily read that.

In any case - if in doubt what value is there in holding another council 
election?

It would seem that the purpose of this clause is to keep an inactive 
council from holding up gentoo as a whole.  I don't think that is really 
the situation here.

In any case, the council could just revise the GLEP to ammend this 
clause if necessary.  Or whatever.  It isn't like the council is a legal 
body in any sense - it is important that they have the respect of the 
development community, but I don't think that most devs are eager for 
new elections.  The only body in gentoo that needs to strictly follow 
legal requirements would be the trustees.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Luca Barbato]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> lu_zero said on IRC last night that he was going to be traveling today, 
> but nobody's shown up to proxy for him:

I'm just back, the travel took quite a lot of time for the return trip...

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Peter Volkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

If we avoid our policies now this creates a case so IMO this is the
reason just to follow our policies and start a new elections as fast as
possible. In other cases there will be valid question why do we need any
policy for council at all? This is just the procedural action I think we
have to perform.

-- 
Peter.

[-- Attachment #2: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Roy Bamford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.05.15 21:49, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
[snip]

> Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? 
> I look forward to hearing your advice.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> -- 
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 

All,

There seems to be almost total apathy to this thread. I expected at 
least as much interest as the thread that announced the three 
expulsions.

Right now, it is important that Council makes up its collective mind 
and does something. Like many management decisions, what is decided is 
far less important than that we have a speedy decision so the rest of 
Gentoo can get on with the implementation.

Delay is the only option we don't have.

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees

Written as my personal view, not on behalf of any team I am a member of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgvWd0ACgkQTE4/y7nJvatCQgCfZ2aP5fQ8ssYmBncw2m3LIX+t
0vcAn1i7I1y2EnN2wth5wTLuxKlSW45c
=tTWR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> There seems to be almost total apathy to this thread. I expected at
> least as much interest as the thread that announced the three
> expulsions.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see so little interest in this
thread. I think it's good news that our developers have other things
to do than being bothered with this.

One reason is I consider this a minor incident. But the main reason is
that it's up to the council to get themselves out of a situation
they've put themselves in. You can't be one day the body that rules
Gentoo, and go back to those who elected you the next day just because
it's convenient. There's an issue with consistency and credibility
here.

I trust they'll make the right decision, assuming there is a need for
a decision. And if they don't that's no big deal. We'll either vote
for a new council soon or sometime this summer.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Alistair Bush]

Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> One reason is I consider this a minor incident. But the main reason is
> that it's up to the council to get themselves out of a situation
> they've put themselves in. You can't be one day the body that rules
> Gentoo, and go back to those who elected you the next day just because
> it's convenient. There's an issue with consistency and credibility
> here.
> 
> Denis.

It really isn't the Councils decision and the only thing they can do to 
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 council via an election, _must_ be performed.

If it isn't then we will no longer have a functioning Council with a 
mandate from the ppl!!! ( maybe a little over dramatic ).  There would 
be no requirement for anything they say to be enacted upon and the "shit 
would hit the fan". ( or would we just elect a new council and let them 
pretend to be the one true Council ).

Could any developer challenge the validity of the Council.  Who would be 
responsible for judging that, Foundation members?

In fact, whose duty is it too call the election? Decide when any 
election is to take place?
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Richard Freeman]

Alistair Bush wrote:
> It really isn't the Councils decision and the only thing they can do to 
> 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 council via an election, _must_ be performed.
> 

Uh - the word "must" is a bit strong.  Why "must" an election be 
performed?  GLEP 39 is a document several years old, that probably 
pre-dates half of the devs here, and most likely most of the ones that 
were around weren't really envisioning that it be used in this way today.

> If it isn't then we will no longer have a functioning Council with a 
> mandate from the ppl!!! ( maybe a little over dramatic ).  There would 
> be no requirement for anything they say to be enacted upon and the "shit 
> would hit the fan". ( or would we just elect a new council and let them 
> pretend to be the one true Council ).

First - I suspect that most devs don't really care a great deal about 
this issue - I doubt that the hundred-or-so required devs to fork a new 
distro are going to leave because a few people missed a scheduled 
meeting.  If the council announced that there would be a re-do of the 
meeting and a new discussion of GLEP 39 I doubt that people would start 
ignoring the resolutions of the council - particular those in key roles 
in the project (ie those with administrative access to project 
resources, the trustees, etc).  If the council announced new elections 
then everybody would start working towards new elections.

The council was elected because they already had the respect of most 
gentoo devs.  That isn't going to change simply because a few people 
missed a meeting.  Organizations aren't run by job titles unless those 
job titles come with the ability to sign paychecks.  They're run by 
people - and leadership is respected regardless of policies written on 
paper.

> 
> Could any developer challenge the validity of the Council.  Who would be 
> responsible for judging that, Foundation members?

Anybody can do anything they want - most of us live in free countries. 
Who would judge that?  Well, that would be our peers.  When we say 
stupid things people start ignoring us.  When we say smart things people 
listen to us.  I can post a poll on some forum somewhere and call it a 
gentoo election, but nobody is going to pay attention to the results 
because most people wouldn't recognize me as a gentoo leader.  If a 
bunch of well-respected devs did the same thing then there is a good 
chance everybody else would go along with it (or there would be a fork). 
  However, I don't think all that many well-respected devs are eager to 
mount a coup over a single missed meeting.

> 
> In fact, whose duty is it too call the election? Decide when any 
> election is to take place?

Hmm - I suspect that would again be the council - since everybody 
already looks to them for leadership.  Why don't we see what their 
perspective is?  If you feel strongly about new elections try contacting 
one of them directly and talking about it.  Most council members have 
gotten where they are because folks think they have a good head on their 
shoulders - they're likely to listen to you.  If they hear lots of 
people calling for a new election I suspect that they'd go ahead and 
hold one.  I think that those who are concerned about this issue would 
get further in this way than by kicking up a storm on a mailing list 
(not that open discussion is a bad thing).  Don't be surprised if they 
don't take action on the basis of one communication, but if they hear 
from lots of devs they'd probably take it seriously.
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

On Monday 19 May 2008 16:39:02 Richard Freeman wrote:
> First - I suspect that most devs don't really care a great deal about
> this issue - 

Well, I for one do care although I've mostly given up on it.

> I doubt that the hundred-or-so required devs to fork a new distro are going 
to leave because a few people missed a scheduled meeting.

What makes you think that needs a hundred or so devs?

-- 
Bo Andresen
Gentoo KDE Dev

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen]

On Monday 19 May 2008 16:39:02 Richard Freeman wrote:
> Alistair Bush wrote:
> > It really isn't the Councils decision and the only thing they can do to
> > 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 council via an election, _must_ be performed.
>
> Uh - the word "must" is a bit strong.  Why "must" an election be
> performed?  GLEP 39 is a document several years old, that probably
> pre-dates half of the devs here, and most likely most of the ones that
> were around weren't really envisioning that it be used in this way today.
Because that was the wording we voted on.

I'd say hold the election as GLEP 39 specifies and be done with the issue.

-- 
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
Gentoo Linux Security Team
-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Alistair Bush]

Richard Freeman wrote:
  > Uh - the word "must" is a bit strong.  Why "must" an election be
> performed?  GLEP 39 is a document several years old, that probably 
> pre-dates half of the devs here, and most likely most of the ones that 
> were around weren't really envisioning that it be used in this way today.

To quote jaervosz
"Because that was the wording we voted on. I'd say hold the election as 
GLEP 39 specifies and be done with the issue."

> 
>> If it isn't then we will no longer have a functioning Council with a 
>> mandate from the ppl!!! ( maybe a little over dramatic ).  There would 
>> be no requirement for anything they say to be enacted upon and the 
>> "shit would hit the fan". ( or would we just elect a new council and 
>> let them pretend to be the one true Council ).
> 
> First - I suspect that most devs don't really care a great deal about 
> this issue - I doubt that the hundred-or-so required devs to fork a new 
> distro are going to leave because a few people missed a scheduled 
> meeting.  If the council announced that there would be a re-do of the 
> meeting and a new discussion of GLEP 39 I doubt that people would start 
> ignoring the resolutions of the council - particular those in key roles 
> in the project (ie those with administrative access to project 
> resources, the trustees, etc).  If the council announced new elections 
> then everybody would start working towards new elections.

It doesn't matter whether a hundred or so dev's care.  It matters 
whether ~some~ dev's care.  Yes this is a situation where the minority 
does matter.  Why?  well what were to happen if the infra team where to 
decide the decisions of the council ( retirements, bans, etc, etc ) were 
not enforceable.  I realise this is being dramatic but it is that exact 
drama I am attempting to avoid.  At the moment it is pretty clear that 
at least some dev's are questioning the mandate that the council would 
have to continue.  When it comes down to it, the law is the law and even 
when the situation is silly, the law must be followed.

> 
> The council was elected because they already had the respect of most 
> gentoo devs.  That isn't going to change simply because a few people 
> missed a meeting.  Organizations aren't run by job titles unless those 
> job titles come with the ability to sign paychecks.  They're run by 
> people - and leadership is respected regardless of policies written on 
> paper.
> 

No it isn't, and hopefully they get voted back in quick smart.

>>
>> Could any developer challenge the validity of the Council.  Who would 
>> be responsible for judging that, Foundation members?
> 
> Anybody can do anything they want - most of us live in free countries. 
> Who would judge that?  Well, that would be our peers.  When we say 
> stupid things people start ignoring us.  When we say smart things people 
> listen to us.  I can post a poll on some forum somewhere and call it a 
> gentoo election, but nobody is going to pay attention to the results 
> because most people wouldn't recognize me as a gentoo leader.  If a 
> bunch of well-respected devs did the same thing then there is a good 
> chance everybody else would go along with it (or there would be a fork). 
>  However, I don't think all that many well-respected devs are eager to 
> mount a coup over a single missed meeting.
> 

My problem with this is that there is required to be a fork.  My 
prefered solution would be that Foundation Members call for elections of 
the Council and can vote no confidence in the council and the Council 
can vote no confidence in the Foundation.  Basically similar to a 
Constitutional Monachy.  but I want to talk more about this is Gentoo 
Leadership Thread.

Under this model there are certain checks and balances and it is simple.

>>
>> In fact, whose duty is it too call the election? Decide when any 
>> election is to take place?
> 
> Hmm - I suspect that would again be the council - since everybody 
> already looks to them for leadership.  Why don't we see what their 
> perspective is?  If you feel strongly about new elections try contacting 
> one of them directly and talking about it.

Betelgeuse, the dev I respect the most on the council ( due to our java 
association ), has already stated we should get the election out of the way.

-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 271 bytes --]

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 16:57 +1200, Alistair Bush wrote:

> No it isn't, and hopefully they get voted back in quick smart.

Hopefully they run again to even have the chance to be voted back in.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3606 bytes --]


On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 21:54 +0000, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
wrote:


> 
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:49:14 -0700
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> >>
> >>     If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
> >>     new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
> >>     year' is then reset from that point.
> >>
> >> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> >> meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> > 
> > Since I'm the one to blame for those bits of GLEP 39...
> > 
> > The wording's fairly explicit -- *any* meeting. The GLEP doesn't say
> > that the council has monthly meetings. It merely requires *at least*
> > one meeting per month:
> > 
> >>     The council must hold an open meeting at least once per month.
> > 
> > The Council is free to decide when it has meetings so long as it meets
> > that requirement. In this case, the Council decided to hold two
> > meetings this month.
> > 
> > Looks like you don't have much choice but to do what the GLEP says
> > and schedule an election...
> > 
> 
> Keeping an election is really not that much trouble so I would just do 
> it. As for why I didn't attend it's because my server hasn't really
> been able to keep itself up lately and with no access to my regular
> irssi screen I forgot to get myself online via other means.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 
> 
This is probably the best of several unattractive alternatives.  It is
very hard to read GLEP 39 as not applying to the "less than 50%
attendance" Council meeting of 15.v.08.  True, this seems rather harsh,
but the alternatives seem worse.
(1) We could finesse the meeting by calling it a continuation of the
8.v.08 meeting, but that would rewrite the history of how that meeting
ended;
(2) We could say that GLEP 39 is meant to cover only the required
monthly Council meetings, but that just ignores what the GLEP says and
what one of its authors says its intent is (see ciaranm's remarks
above);
(3) We could say the 15.v.08 meeting is only adjourned, but that has the
difficulty that the meeting could never start because of no quorum;
(4) We could ignore GLEP 39, but that says that Gentoo uses written
policy only when we like the results;
(5) We could amend GLEP 39.  Perhaps we should, but I am not sure we can
amend a policy to apply retroactively to a policy violation and keep a
straight face.  And note that amending GLEP 39 is at least as hard as
just following Petteri's suggestion.
(6) We could recommend leniency in this case, but that might leave
Council in a rather delicate position when they get to the pending
appeals.
(7) Other more controversial possibilities that I can dream up but which
probably are best stillborn.

This leaves the subject of the non-meeting unresolved and also the
pending appeals.  Probably we should hold the election quickly and pass
that on to the next Council, but I think we should hear from those who
have appeals pending on that.  Thus, the CC, assuming email is being
forwarded correctly.

To avoid any confusion.  I am speaking only as a developer and as a
requested participant in this meeting whenever or however it occurs.  I
do NOT speak for Devrel on this matter, and I do NOT speak as a trustee
for the Foundation on this matter.

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]

Hello Ferris,

> This leaves the subject of the non-meeting unresolved and also the
> pending appeals.  Probably we should hold the election quickly and pass
> that on to the next Council, but I think we should hear from those who
> have appeals pending on that.  Thus, the CC, assuming email is being
> forwarded correctly.

Personally, I think GLEP39 should be followed and an election should  
take place. The suggestions I've read so far, albeit certainly meant  
well, all have a "taste", IMHO, and would make (parts of) Gentoo look  
bad.

(I would only hope email keeps getting forwarded until the appeals  
have been dealt with.)

Best regards, Wulf C. Krueger


[-- Attachment #2: PGP Digital Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 893 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 15:37 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> Hello Ferris,
> 
> > This leaves the subject of the non-meeting unresolved and also the
> > pending appeals.  Probably we should hold the election quickly and pass
> > that on to the next Council, but I think we should hear from those who
> > have appeals pending on that.  Thus, the CC, assuming email is being
> > forwarded correctly.
> 
> Personally, I think GLEP39 should be followed and an election should  
> take place. The suggestions I've read so far, albeit certainly meant  
> well, all have a "taste", IMHO, and would make (parts of) Gentoo look  
> bad.

If we do proceed with electing a new council. It's not the end of the
world. Since we would be doing so in a couple months anyway, no? So just
expediting the elections a bit.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]