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 B06E113877A for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:43:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60CA8E087D; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:43:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f176.google.com (mail-vc0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C19F6E0875 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:43:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ik5so560142vcb.7 for ; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:43:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=FDiUlR+n6fDqkF9V4cU73YOgvr+pcMvBP7oF3ewWxbw=; b=x2xfkQAPmnZGWyL75P1ucNDHnziVwsKqj3255k4Cf3N79z8X1K1faZAk3UOUGvdvD7 hdYfhH7YdCHo1Tw2X36aBI9BJnZkbje0390OH4wsFN0KI8hyKI8h7HI8ZTARwrhxpjwY IJPwHDvquYTwoXv6gjFYkzss/nFS3vD8BOTs4K2xdeLhjbYX/AmWMW8Gtmol2Sv8EDkT uOJdJlr0aEFnZ5U7RHQiEyXra2dJ/jLG1xSc+8vSHEftAXxoUVZD5C9lPXVNs5djc325 DDMFVG2zT6tDgNPsr40gIAKGxZ8tXdCWIusaQpsO6H/HGXntWNVjYVlEJcXuyf2bOxzx 7W7w== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.150.1 with SMTP id ue1mr5037384veb.11.1404409412906; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:43:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53B5902E.8080303@gentoo.org> References: <539BD2E2.7030803@gentoo.org> <1757239.UAu395ci7F@kailua> <53B2E4CA.1080408@gentoo.org> <3677509.vVmt2iqRkA@kailua> <53B53E12.10209@opensource.dyc.edu> <53B5902E.8080303@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:43:32 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3E9avRZcXVwZqRMnfInIfjdIRXE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council 2014 / 2015 election From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 8dab348f-3c66-439a-ac2c-c6b20eee7bfc X-Archives-Hash: b10274b9462da293da5568d1243ea055 On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > No, its not that you trust someone or you don't --- you might trust them in > some situations but not others. Usually the discriminating factor is > whether the person is "untainted" by the issue, ie. you can't see any reason > why they would judge one way or another out of self-interest. We sometimes > call this "objectivity". Part of the subtext I see in this thread is "how > do we structure our governance such that we preserve objectivity." So, my > answer is you probably can't and when someone finds themselves in what is > perceived as a conflict of interest by many (even if the person himself > doesn't think so), then abtain. > I'll buy everything you said but your use of the word "many." I would not consider your example a conflict of interest. If I'm on the Council and the Council is asked to censure me, I'll recuse myself. If I'm on the Council and the Council is asked to censure I team I happen to be a member of, I probably won't recuse myself. If that concerns anybody, then don't vote for me. :) I don't plan on recusing myself from discussions indirectly impacting packages I use/maintain either, unless there really is some kind of personal issue at stake. I don't really get all that attached to things like this. Maybe some would have difficulty fairly re-evaluating a decision they partook in, or even made themselves. I try not to. If the Council decides to boot some package I maintain from the tree, that's what overlays are for. When I come into a Council meeting I try to add value in the discussion, and I've been known to vote differently than I intended to walking in. If it were otherwise I'd suggest that we quite wasting time with meetings and just vote in bug comments or by email or something. If somebody feels they can't be impartial on a decision due to personal bias and wish to abstain, then I fully support them in this. Heck, if there were a huge outcry (meaning lots of devs, not a dozen devs making lots of posts) I'd probably also recuse myself. I just don't feel the need to abstain from a decision because a few people will get upset by it - I try to find compromises when we can, but you can never please everybody. That's my opinion, anyway. I'm opposed to the mandatory non-overlap in the Council and Trustees as well, but as long as those are the rules I follow them like everybody else does... Rich