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 1SAPsK-0005ZM-NW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:03:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B1BDE07D8 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65850E093A for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:31:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1137621bkw.40 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:31:43 -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 :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/IAl7BMzfZV7Xg1Jicp2ifRW3+Htqd+xGY7U05zg8Es=; b=NX93jlhq70+b+udKh2eSy5kLxZn54+c/JXj+XSH5XISWmf3Voei1JpD9eHSjvZdc7C ASbQ+EFVovr8F59hrV24sk1SyywBnCRts6aD/qFChS3TNToAzIuSJpg3NKRh0NKSJem0 eRYpqh7ISWFwkh6PiYggh/HQ5lj5emaS94z2pBN6cK6cj6z+25IU28rwUdPbFKGxHklr FNA0SXPDV092d85/KyifVzJVLtpvBVu37sVNH9+E5yTHjWY5Q+2lEvvE51rmQ1XK+K8Z 6HUNpZ1pl6DmUtDOjhmLeVv3HBTqLp+NNkoca/vH3BF7v1RdxLd4H0DXH0t2jZlXPIRu 682Q== 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 Received: by 10.204.13.72 with SMTP id b8mr1677155bka.105.1332343903445; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.205.65.206 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:31:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120321115222.GC4849@localhost.google.com> References: <20328.10318.193096.854402@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20328.10723.911441.295340@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4F68E8C1.5070709@gentoo.org> <20328.61440.866922.376617@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1332279254.19017.1.camel@belkin4> <20120321073831.GC84429@gentoo.org> <20329.36006.112786.843272@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120321115222.GC4849@localhost.google.com> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:31:43 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: y5bfpjUa7qCkgXne0FWVYVinkMA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 6c452f38-47e7-4d2c-8a79-499bbdeae8c6 X-Archives-Hash: e38526a52a72ca31064a8a187f75b4cf On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Brian Harring wrote: > Condorcet should be dev wide imo, rather than council. =A0I'm certainly > not of the belief we should do group wide votes on every decision, but > this sort of thing is likely to generally piss people off and not have > any clear majority on its own- thus would go that route. Frankly, this really strikes me as one of those situations where resolving it by some kind of majority vote among many options is probably the worst possible way to resolve it. If we narrow it down to one or two items and there is a consensus among the Council that either is fine and it comes down to religious preference, then a limited dev-wide vote might at least settle the debate. However, I wouldn't just throw the 47 options in the email chains into some huge list and have everybody rank them. It probably wouldn't hurt to have the Council members hash this out to some extent before going into a meeting. If the only time you discuss this is 20 minutes per month you'll never make a decision. By all means hash it out on -project or on an email alias if noise is too great. Perhaps post updates to -project if the latter is used, and let everybody influence the debate indirectly through the Council. I think just about every line of argument has already been hashed out over the last few years. The council members just need to go over the debate and form a consensus. Using a vote to solicit feedback is fine, but I wouldn't use it as a substitute for discussion and forming consensus. Rich