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 1A1751382C5 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 00:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C47E9E0A59; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 00:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tsukuyomi.43-1.org (tsukuyomi.43-1.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:173:743::1:50]) (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 81FEAE0A49 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 00:40:10 +0000 (UTC) From: Matthias Maier To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-04-08 In-Reply-To: <87muyt9njh.fsf@gentoo.org> (Matthias Maier's message of "Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:11:30 -0500") References: <87muyt9njh.fsf@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:40:04 -0500 Message-ID: <87a7ulktqz.fsf@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 X-Archives-Salt: 0dde6b35-ea86-4be7-a34f-27f529f9af5e X-Archives-Hash: 973be0a662b3cc74aa118a1128dcac9e On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, at 17:11 CDT, Matthias Maier wrote: > [...] I have the feeling that quite a bit of the current heated discussion (about whatever) stems from a perceived lack of "democracy" in our processes. Therefore, I suggest as meeting agenda that the council discusses the introduction of a "general resolution" similarly to the one that Debian has [1]. Debian's version would have to be adapted to Gentoo specifics but in short a possible version could include - overruling council (and comrel?) decisions with a 2:1 majority - a vote of no confidence forcing council reelections - accepting/withdrawing/... GLEPs with a 2:1 majority A vote could be initiated by - the council itself - a sufficient number of developers seconding the motion Eligible voters would be Gentoo developers. I am happy to author a first draft proposal GLEP. If this idea finds enough supporters on the developer side and on the council, I suggest to proceed as follows: - let council accept the GLEP - initiate a "general resolution" (or however we end up naming the child) asking to support the GLEP formally. I am tired of hearing that my decisions and that of my colleagues on the council would be due to some agenda, sinister behavior or whatever. A "general resolution" would introduce a nice mechanism that would deter loud single voices ("the majority of developers is against this and that") and let just speak the body of developers itself. I suggest we make the bar of initiating such a vote relatively high (but by no means impossible) so that we don't get swamped with too much stuff, though. Best, Matthias [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4