Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1690 bytes --]

On 12:30 Fri 05 Aug     , Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80% of 
> > developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very 
> > highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally 
> > changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it 
> > cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo 
> > wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them 
> > make the choice.
> 
> I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it. Why 
> do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst 
> council members and devs in general?

But I'm not saying that. Instead, what if (this is a hypothetical, not 
saying it's reality) there's just a few council members whom the devs in 
general support?

Let's assume the following scenario:

The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees with 
the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they 
must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening 
nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from 
proposing any changes to GLEP 39.

In other words, it sounds like what you're saying is that anyone could 
propose changes to GLEP 39 that go to a full developer vote. Unless 
you're on the council, in which case there's an automatic veto 
opportunity given to them first. That second bit is the part that 
doesn't make any sense to me.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]