From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8B811382C5 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97CDAE0DEE; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C026E0DED for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k15so9842723oib.1 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:42:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :mime-version:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=f3I//sx5Be8C21I8Dg1ZuFhZbNDzMbT7acXbRDqrZWo=; b=gpAwsvAYQvtuOAmUKxgHFbmtq3+ltRaHwyq9dbehB3b6RCREOYBvwGj4P+cPEZ9Q7Y ZENOalNG1CbnyVzE9r+x5qFZ8kq0/yG009ebDt4Mj55xDSIPF732g4soL5/ComuSF1Ba Dgli9rI0OXs7YaHomJ9ixeA5HtqI9pP2yNQ7t8kET9w/46jPBa7OjAEQUzw5PdEKKJZr Wi9g2Dw3cVE3XLjVe0I5egBKLeIfKckW58vZKc6qw7B5jEAcZEEoPQnSV9reZJBDhFll KfopAt2s6IQUhId5OpK7EO3lP/2LdUy2BlX6OvHWZSVAHE/iOXbR1qDD0LVm/p7zPZRO MmFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=f3I//sx5Be8C21I8Dg1ZuFhZbNDzMbT7acXbRDqrZWo=; b=txYl2HybFklvANhfEoTiwj7o+K84piu1T6NTnl02OHxCZ7Rc2WAxkCi5MmStHrJSZO tdoKibgCSfnBRmFTu6t4vdRJ22riCTftgIEdUTrvs+MsFa4aOsnxSa5omQ1PO8WNMhBU xn753rrLZCik13DoNbjkcNlKq/LoBaqWsjPPiyY/obVermvyCsRW8v3T7Dp1Slucv1JJ awFnlEIZEqzZ5123KbIs+0izSKWwBi7Qh9JPXVR5OHVKDrz/WX8tmi1Etofztm9xzjcg kL2T+3wTnUXJoqv1yuqC781mkLbbb/VlXMPyQIBFvNZ087y3oDDhwZ/2iwKtx9Qfy+ZD GemA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAHpzoRtCOA156l84w+ANHy2t+z65ho7LluRckDkIDVlremZBBx FCdF89Ay2jkSujjVx6PLLQcTzw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225EWH83M76+oWelfV1YEawSyT9k2TQ9UTJzZrRHzLQGNayk0exSUSBkhz2R2tqesDAUXFnFjg== X-Received: by 10.202.180.9 with SMTP id d9mr2788721oif.16.1518388957303; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from linux1 (cpe-66-68-34-247.austin.res.rr.com. [66.68.34.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u23sm1580376oiv.15.2018.02.11.14.42.35 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:42:35 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 6935 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:42:34 -0000 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:42:34 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals Message-ID: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Archives-Salt: e45ebfe0-1e8f-4c8b-9130-53f8e31d38d0 X-Archives-Hash: 11d8690b5a2bdfe2874f0d0d1053eca2 --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX" Content-Disposition: inline --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi all, The council can't make this change since it is a glep 39 change, so I am bringing it to the community for discussion -- I assume there would need to be a full dev vote to make it happen. I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have felt this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the full council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. As a member of the council who would be affected by this, if it passes and I run and am elected to council again, I would have no problem with stepping down from QA. Attached is a patch for glep 39 which will make this change. Thoughts? William --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="glep-0039.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable diff --git a/glep-0039.rst b/glep-0039.rst index c458450..d3e71df 100644 --- a/glep-0039.rst +++ b/glep-0039.rst @@ -155,6 +155,11 @@ B. Global issues will be decided by an elected Gentoo = council. election for *all* places must be held within a month. The 'one year' is then reset from that point. * Disciplinary actions may be appealed to the council. + * A council member must not concurrently be a member of a project + whose actions can be appealed to the council such as QA or Comrel. + Members of these projects may run for council under the + understanding that if they are elected they will be removed from + these projects until they leave the council. * A proxy must not be an existing council member, and any single person may not be a proxy for more than one council member at any given meeting. @@ -204,6 +209,10 @@ So, does this proposal solve any of the previously-men= tioned problems? =20 8. This proposal has nothing to say about GLEPs. =20 +9. If council members are also members of projects whose actions can + be appealed to the council, the full council cannot vote fairly on + appeals from those projects. + References =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX-- --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCWoDG1AAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OHUlAJ9WyHN4aGi4BlZ4CYQ/D2IOneE/cgCfWYZTN1E80iYLJrw7+qaua544dbs= =LQft -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz--