From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Qo8b7-0005GJ-QG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:37:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 037A021C1AD; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 06:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amun.cheops.ods.org (amun.cheops.ods.org [83.161.135.166]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8868B21C149 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 06:36:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tefnut.cheops.ods.org ([2001:980:57a5:1:211:24ff:fe37:e46e] helo=gentoo.org) by amun.cheops.ods.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qo8an-00035x-TX for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:36:42 +0200 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:36:33 +0200 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years Message-ID: <20110802063633.GB20656@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20110801184751.GS20656@gentoo.org> <4E3735C8.6000500@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E3735C8.6000500@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (Darwin 8.11.0, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.3) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Content-Scanned: by amun.cheops.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 62756e7395094b6266e3db3f488b2984 On 01-08-2011 23:24:56 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > As I've expressed already a few times, I strongly disagree with the > Council being able to change the rules that govern it. In my view, this > topic belongs to a reform of GLEP39. > > Also, as documented on the last meeting's summary[1], the current > council voted on not being able to update GLEP39: > > Donnie asked for a clarification by the council members on whether they > think a global dev vote is required to update GLEP39 or not. The > council voted 5 yes and 1 no that the council can't change GLEP39 as it > requires a full developer vote. > > [1] - > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110715-summary.txt Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain change to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the supporting material for the change. > > Please discuss how to implement a change like this. Starting point > > would be to see what changes would be necessary to GLEP39. Also, > > whether the term would have to become 2 year, or the votings be twice > > a year. All contributions, objections or alternative ideas welcome. > > - From my experience in the council, I think 2 year terms are too long. > Having overlapping terms might work or not, I'd say it depends on who is > elected to the council - although they can help in the transition. > One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5 council > members. I think the current number is a good balance between a cohesive > body and a representative body and that a council with only 5 members is > getting too thin. I think 7 is ok as well. Probably a good document on how things work, and what is expected from council members would get new members started quickly without too much problems as well. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level