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 1QqmwJ-0008AI-HH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:05:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AEAE421C200; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:05:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927D221C108 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mayo-nat4.mayo.edu [129.176.197.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dberkholz) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CECA61B4006 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:05:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:05:31 -0500 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years Message-ID: <20110809140531.GC25611@comet.mayo.edu> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sHrvAb52M6C8blB9" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20027.50754.135352.913960@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 3039e8dbf85fd642c660b2663fe89dba --sHrvAb52M6C8blB9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > > developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very=20 > > highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally=20 > > changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it=20 > > cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo=20 > > wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them=20 > > make the choice. >=20 > I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it. Why=20 > do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst=20 > council members and devs in general? But I'm not saying that. Instead, what if (this is a hypothetical, not=20 saying it's reality) there's just a few council members whom the devs in=20 general support? Let's assume the following scenario: The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees with=20 the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they=20 must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening=20 nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from=20 proposing any changes to GLEP 39. In other words, it sounds like what you're saying is that anyone could=20 propose changes to GLEP 39 that go to a full developer vote. Unless=20 you're on the council, in which case there's an automatic veto=20 opportunity given to them first. That second bit is the part that=20 doesn't make any sense to me. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com --sHrvAb52M6C8blB9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk5BPqsACgkQXVaO67S1rtul3wCfZ5ua038AhM4cvVjJAArxcID/ NpUAoMmouYewQfhknjxkOY1yDnUhd00N =U6p5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sHrvAb52M6C8blB9--