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 F2A38138334 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:21:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED996E0931; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from asona.a21an.org (asona.a21an.org [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:fe96:53cb]) (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 B1A0EE092E for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asona.a21an.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41K0bK4Mb7z2rHK for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:21:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at a21an.org Received: from asona.a21an.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (asona.a21an.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with LMTP id FawdGAJTRq1s for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from angelfall.a21an.org (unknown [88.247.127.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asona.a21an.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41K0bJ64zXz2rHJ for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:21:40 +0300 From: Eray Aslan To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] pre-GLEP: Gentoo General Resolution Message-ID: <20180702082140.GA6651@angelfall.a21an.org> References: <1530202455.901.3.camel@gentoo.org> <20180629051228.GC3190@angelfall.a21an.org> <1530297145.737.44.camel@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: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1530297145.737.44.camel@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: e352d2ff-f25b-4077-b8de-6718db0ba7f6 X-Archives-Hash: 43631517a9313c0c7f0ecb891c505a51 On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:32:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > I've chosen our numbers to be high enough to discourage attempted abuse > while making it possible to actually use GR when necessary. Which > numbers are you specifically talking about? N1 and N2 > N1 being around 30 developers may seem large but it's certainly smaller > than the number of Gentoo developers actively contributing to Gentoo > every day. I get that getting them all to sign off is cumbersome but if > there's a real reason to use GR, I'm pretty sure they'll find > the motivation to do that. GLEP: twice the square root of active developers, i.e. ~30 I guess Debian: half the square root active developers or 5 whichever is smaller. So practically 6 (5+1) And bear in mind that Debian has a lot more active developers. > N2 being 25% developers is really small. We're talking about all-dev > vote, so really expecting at least 25% to actively take part is a must. > It's larger than N1 but we're talking of a vote that's handled via > voting mechanism all devs are supposed to notice. GLEP: 25% Debian: ~10% if we take number of active developers as 200 > The 2:1 majority is what Debian uses for overriding decisions of TC. 2:1 is fine. Getting ~30 developers to sign a petition is just not realistic. I doubt it will ever be done. I feel we are back to the same differences as we did in closing the gentoo-dev ML to the general public, namely low/no tolerance for dissident voices. "I know best, my way or highway" attitude is not always a bad thing in technical matters. However, as we have seen in the gentoo-dev ML discussion, council decides on non-tech matters as well. The procedure for calculating the number of active developers should probably also be mentioned somewhere in the GLEP or perhaps referenced if defined elsewhere. -- Eray