From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C733B13877A for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DA00E088F; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7146FE07DD for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (unknown [213.136.73.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C27A33FDDB; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B3E74C.9080109@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:04:44 +0000 From: hasufell 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 CC: dilfridge@gentoo.org, jlec@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council 2014 / 2015 election References: <539BD2E2.7030803@gentoo.org> <1757239.UAu395ci7F@kailua> <53B2E4CA.1080408@gentoo.org> <53B2FE38.7040508@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3165d925-3456-4325-9dfe-5ffb1405aab6 X-Archives-Hash: 9d4ff1382188ea429ad8a981e28c7af2 Rich Freeman: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:30 PM, hasufell wrote: >> So you are basically saying a conflict of interest can happen and when >> it does, everyone will actually realize it and also act appropriately. >> > > Well, if people don't do that, then you're up the creek no matter what > system of governance you come up with. > > SOMEBODY has to make the final decision, and they can always have a > conflict of interest. > > Unless half the council is in on the original offense, it really only > makes a difference if it is a close call. So, avoid doing things that > would tick off half the council and you should be fine. :) > > This is no different than a majority of trustees being able to sell > the Foundation to your least favorite IT vendor. If you're going to > vote a bunch of untrustworthy individuals into office, then you might > not like the result. > > I don't see a practical alternative. The kinds of skills that you > need to be a decent Trustee, Council member, or Comrel member overlap > significantly. We aren't exactly a huge organization. So, we either > have to accept overlap, or put people into these roles that we might > otherwise not want to. There is also QA and Infra to consider - do we > not allow anybody to be on more than one of these teams? > Then I hope dilfridge and jlec respond to this thread, so I can make a decision on how to vote.