Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] pre-GLEP: Gentoo General Resolution

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:08 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> It is clear.  It is understood.  If you have an issue with it then send mgorny
> a patch.  As stated, it nullifies a particular decision.  Plain and simple.
>

If it ONLY nullifies a decision, then basically the result is the
status quo before any decision was made.

> It doesn't *need* to be reversed.  It is a nullification of a decision because
> of disagreement by the developer community.  So, the council should react by
> trying something that is "in line" with the issues that were brought up.
> Plain and simple.

So your proposed workflow is:

Council approves A.

Devs object to A.  Devs perform GR.  A is unapproved.

Council approves B.

At that point Devs are then free to do another GR?  If we're going to
the trouble to nullify a decision, wouldn't we want to decide what
goes in its place?

The only thing the GR would convey is that A is unacceptable.
Certainly there would be a bazillion list posts talking about why
various individuals think A is unacceptable, but that doesn't really
tell anybody what factions might exist and what compromise might be
accepted by a majority.

> No, the council just proposes a new/modified proposal to vote on.  This should
> have been a product of civil discourse.  Understanding what the issues were
> and addressing them.

Well, presumably that would have been done the first time.  And
nothing stops them from just proposing the same thing that was struck
down, with or without modification.

>
> e.g. "The developer community believes service manager X goes against Gentoo
> principals."
>
> Council: "Ok, here is a modified proposal addressing this concern"

How would you know what the concern actually is, if the only thing the
developers all voted on was that they didn't like the original
decision?

>
> What? The council can initiate GR to overrule itself?
>

So, my statement was based on thinking that the GR wasn't just
rejecting a decision, but making a new decision of its own.  Most of
my subsequent comments do not apply if all it does is reject
decisions.

> >
> > Not sure where I ever suggested that being a volunteer excused
> > non-compliance with policy.  I simply pointed out that volunteers may
> > not be enthusiastic about doing things they disagree with.  That is
> > just reality.  It certainly shapes Council decisions, as it ought to.
> > And again it was more of a philosophical point than a defect that
> > needed to be addressed.
>
> You do often.

Citation?  And maybe save pontificating over it for a thread when I'm
actually doing it?

-- 
Rich