From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505771381F3 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C950AE0A44; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22DB1E0A07 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (pc-137-111-101-190.cm.vtr.net [190.101.111.137]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD30233E5EF for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:50:29 -0400 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] On the way Devrel is constituted Message-ID: <20130619205029.44e1a3a3@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51C21229.9070105@gentoo.org> References: <51C21229.9070105@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.1 (GTK+ 2.24.19; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b1aa313f-a346-4bf9-a9c8-6c767ba38d8a X-Archives-Hash: f93e4e878e6473f434db28bfef955ccc On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:18:49 +0200 hasufell wrote: [...] > Who controls devrel? > Simple answer: no one. And this is good IMHO. Judiciary should be an independent power. > The only thing that can stop devrel is the council, which has some > kind of veto right. But that is not enough to guarantee that an entity > with that kind of power/authority/responsibility consists of people > who are capable of that task. It might be good to have a way to demote someone from devrel if he is abusing his powers. It can probably already be done by talking to other devrel members. So far, I've never seen any need for it. > It's a self-maintaining project without any logical connection between > the legitimation of the project and the legitimation of the members. > There is no rotation of members which is absolutely crucial for a > position like that. I don't see why there should be a rotation: Such a rotation might just make people try to get as much as they can from their new powers until they are "rotated". If people are seriously involved with devrel, handle impartially conflicts and are able to resolve them, why replacing them? > What is a possible solution? > Let the council elect all members. That way the power still comes from > the dev community, although they do not vote devrel directly. The > council should vote anonymously, so that no connection between council > member and elected devrel member can be drawn which could otherwise > affect the election of the council. > This system should prevent people from thinking two steps ahead when > voting the council. So that the council controls everything: they nominate the judges (devrel) and are the appeal court. I consider this even worse. Alexis.