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 5F3AD1382C5 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:22:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F8D1E0AE7; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 0D478E0AD4 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:4ecc:6aff:fe03:1cfc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06C1D335C0A for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:21:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:21:41 +0100 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals Message-ID: <20180214002141.1d8a6da2@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; 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: 2d8110d6-f7f3-4c4d-866f-f072aa2652c5 X-Archives-Hash: fdc3492bed1d499941eb8ee43adacc2c On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:42:34 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > 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. In most sane entities I've seen where there's a possible conflict of interest, people remotely suspected to be biased not only refrain from voting but also keep quiet during the whole discussion. All of this by themselves. I don't think we should prevent any such conflict by prohibiting people from running from council (or forcing them to resign from other duties). Self-discipline should be enough, but since you feel this is not properly applied, maybe a rule to say they should not participate to the discussion nor voting in those cases would be saner ? Alexis.