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 1QpHq9-0000Qp-Fa for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:41:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEBD021C0E6; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hera.cwi.nl (hera.cwi.nl [192.16.191.8]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C59C21C08D for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (volund.ins.cwi.nl [192.16.196.166]) by hera.cwi.nl with ESMTP id p75Aexqx019868 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:40:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:40:59 +0200 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years Message-ID: <20110805104059.GJ81662@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20110801184751.GS20656@gentoo.org> <4E3735C8.6000500@gentoo.org> <20110802063633.GB20656@gentoo.org> <20110802154256.GA5661@linux1> <20110802161558.GD20656@gentoo.org> <20110804200806.GF4840@comet.ucsd.edu> <20110805065854.GV20656@gentoo.org> <20110805074937.GB4475@comet.ucsd.edu> <20027.50754.135352.913960@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> 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: <20027.50754.135352.913960@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (Darwin 9.8.0, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.3) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 9f93a908df85443baa1cbdd42c8754fd On 05-08-2011 12:30:26 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > I think there are two alternative scenarios here: > > 1. If the council itself puts forward the idea of restructuring its > mode of operation, then of course there should be a council vote > before it is passed on to the dev community. I agree with Fabian > here. > > 2. On the other hand, if such an idea is driven by the dev community, > then the council shouldn't discuss it at all (not as council, of > course individual council members can participate in the > discussion). Thanks Ulrich. I previously only considered option 1. I completely concur to both scenarios. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level