From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QpIA4-000680-TT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:01:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A123021C0E6; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:01:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964D421C08D for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:01:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so2489668wyh.40 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:01:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RWwXYvyL4MN1CJ8qal8oF+wJn2P7KwsXtC6XRIugSlA=; b=S3nOizgrvP7EcH1q2kqFPxmvd5x8VGRFarWF7hPZXQdTlggGJEpG+eON6iKpuTF2uX x6DO/pDE4xPZhgTAhaQCzrvx/7LAhar9EoysI2qOVIxoybT1rF9cANmZLC6AVt3d50FS nVuGOfZs7H0DqhVE4DTmah2i9nFRQSPukDyP8= Received: by 10.227.195.138 with SMTP id ec10mr1740577wbb.87.1312542088759; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.88.185.147] (wh147a.halls.manchester.ac.uk [130.88.185.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ej15sm896515wbb.48.2011.08.05.04.01.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Markos Chandras Message-ID: <4E3BCD6E.8030101@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:01:02 +0100 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110721 Thunderbird/5.0 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years References: <20110801184751.GS20656@gentoo.org> <4E3735C8.6000500@gentoo.org> <1312307887.2901.2@NeddySeagoon> <4E38B4D9.7020603@gentoo.org> <1312404150.2882.2@NeddySeagoon> <20110804200630.GE4840@comet.ucsd.edu> <1312496361.2864.0@NeddySeagoon> <4E3BC710.6090402@gentoo.org> <20110805104952.GK81662@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20110805104952.GK81662@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 8375101840a737a005a560594a5b1d1e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 08/05/2011 11:49 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 05-08-2011 11:33:52 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> A smaller committee for a chief technical officer fits better >>> into a normal corporate structure. A smaller council could form >>> special interest groups to address individual problems so nothing >>> would be lost from the reduced numbers. >>> >> FWIW, I support Donnie's idea. I would like to see a smaller and >> more flexible Council which could assign tasks to interested >> parties. Right now, it takes 3-4 months (that is 3-4 meetings) for >> a Council to decide things and make substantial progress where >> other distributions are moving faster by having a single developer >> or a small group leading the project. In my point of view, we need >> to consider a fundamental change to our organizational structure. >> Roy's ideas are very interesting, however we need to decide on an >> abstract design before we dig into the details. > > You really don't think the effectiveness of Council meetings should > be improved, instead of just reducing the number of members and > responsibilties, such that just one person is responsible for a > decision? > This is possible up to a point. But having 7 people around makes it hard to maintain an effectiveness/short meeting ratio. In this case, things have to be discussed (and possibly decided) in advanced. > I am against the idea of having single people being able to easily > make (possibly totally unfunded) decisions that affect Gentoo full > project wide. > I wonder why this works so well for other distros. > On the other hand, Council members should discuss much more on > lists, prior to meetings, ultimately resolving/deciding issues > already before any meeting takes place. I see no direct need for > centralised meetings at all to discuss on many topics. Voting could > happen on a ML as good as on IRC. > I agree. The discussion should start on the next day of the meeting and not one week before the next one. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOO81uAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCQWcP/1OT/9EAuGr3Q7Pv8MSpdLdj pAE+iQ/f6/SexFsU1Ishfo1IWEFpmLrJRf6nw/GK2S28MyjFIOam5LOMKQLnq+xS zCcfDdV/zxmyyWgjTfu4PSrOZEcD+Fqi/k5791o3KEznCFRhwASZg0znka3Ms2w6 fLRIQPfyEozjFU6Fb+6mnlzLxKGuTpdijtw4H1G6U8u38BuyXzUW9ewgD/R62RQ1 rJAJxJXBzPRE8uwEV7aF8N5a9APC2+hw7GmHY/7SVWR0MBGj0rFaqW8P4uy8Xx7q oPx1rmVvdmuPmyqCo6yFV2JWXB0V0EApmH+Ytf+RLTHSYWDMQkfrnZAbHYZWuoLf VNxsUHAY7xH7T0LfU+2ifi9xW2lknS+mM3nXuakGkNfGo+BA/6zcl655a/Mkjg2B I7c76RLSJv98ucuzTYgfSsFV6VJlKvbQNCcpb2JqKmC6F3RrYml3OgSjIvbsP9qP dxcpl06Xf2YRiznXWKwiNT58zAGPR9h5Rn77fIZZl3ROXj/r5PACGKUbU7bKJJQu 1DudC9w4jiYYNGNJHsqXYcWwczzPoNPm8LUhcxCkQf4MpUUKWyUMKm/M2wVOBc50 Ppwf6OHCDTb4rP/ykFYteeQXZa1aiUdQbreFG9MFKihAO6yf30r64ZJVJRCnpBu3 VXhsymTlDcCXtK/0G960 =GFa5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----