On 2018-02-12 09:58, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> By the same logic, council members should not be members of _any_
> project, because the council can override any project's decisions.

Yes. That sounds irritating but think about the following:

Person X is member of project Z and also in council. The majority of
project Z opposes the opinion of X. Maybe they vote on that decision and
the other opinion just won with _one_ vote. Now X sits in the council. X
has the power to overrule the project's decision by influencing other
council members. X doesn't have to participate in the council's vote on
this at all, to poisoning the pool of council members it is enough to be
around and let others know you have a different opinion and disagree
with the project's decision.

But this is getting complicated. No one wants to forbid X's opinion at
all. It is good that X has his/her own view. But it should be clear on
the other hand that just because X has the power to poisoning the pool
of council members he/she shouldn't be around. X has to respect the
project/team's decision. He/she has to acknowledge that the majority
wants a different way. A person supporting the project's decision should
be around and consulted if there are any questions. And other council
member should respect (weight) the project's decision more than the
opinion of council member.


> It is known prior to a council election if a candidate is a member
> of ComRel or QA. So, leave it to the electorate to evaluate if such
> a candidate is suitable for the council.

Remember we are talking about this now when everything is more or less
fine. But such a rule is for the future to protect the project when
things are going wrong. Do you really want to see this happen, a council
following their own agenda and nobody can stop them because they were
elected for 1y?

Like in politics, to get elected you can say "I will do A" but once you
got elected you can do the opposite... so leaving it to the electorate
sounds nice but not if council members can do the opposite of what they
said before the election without any consequences. So you want to limit
the power to limit the possible damage... just in case.


Anyways, William's proposal isn't going that far. So we should
focus/limiting discussion on William's proposal.


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5