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 449811381F3 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:46:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85891E08FF; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:46:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D86F2E08FE for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id gf12so3144114vcb.13 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:46:02 -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=p2xYVsahCPpkOYDfcQKmEM+LpkovLuekIYMNVzX6L8o=; b=b2d6+kQGYtUNDLhcKRfzEUnSw9e4uMtMBJDg7dIiXr65Z4ESGqdatvDTphlrIWHhjd FesAuVP+1hg9oy/GTYgk5kodlbIegG4LxTEbaa07H1pyNWP0IScCt538Z9qtqHyhO/X7 +AgmWsSqmxD25nvd7jTairA/2YzJNg6H3yfA3JHA2UPYO1SlYhe398DxSELgmx94T84h nav0tjiaQ1axp1PhbROu5HFtN5nHULRoE7187GvQbWi7U1nffR4rQa+aDkTAk78YuRb+ i6IXHt6o0rg53J/fuarAuiwX6qngQIgmYv23XXxTZOODCvNKztzTtOsQrzaiyWQH1fsk 05wA== 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 10.58.221.134 with SMTP id qe6mr8598850vec.2.1369403162039; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.183.74 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:46:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:46:01 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: NgjxKrb3lIQ0mBaBj95xltRBR9Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Code of Conduct From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: e74cc883-cf9e-4354-bba6-aab93de0a83c X-Archives-Hash: d7cc7205947b823ad00315e5ec12ade8 On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > Thats a question, someone could correctly state that appealing mechanism > member should not be involved in the first level resolution. They could state that. There isn't anything "correct" or "incorrect" about that statement as it is a statement of values, not fact. The fact is that if the council is the judge then you don't have anyone to appeal it to. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion. I'm of the opinion that it is neither good or bad. If the council doesn't like you they can just appoint an enforcer who will bring charges against you and then uphold them on appeal. If the community can't elect a decent group to govern it from within its ranks, then it is basically doomed no matter what the policies are. > Because this way it can be that you actually complain about decision of a > guy to the same guy. Yup. I agree that this would be a consequence of changing the policy. I think a unitary system of government makes sense for organizations smaller than a few million people, and a unitary government is one in which the topmost authority has absolute authority (though they can be elected, and can be a board). That is how most companies and even how most democracies work (the US being a noteworthy exception). The routine process may be to appeal to your local zoning board before going to parliament, but if for whatever reason your parliament was interested they could tell the zoning board to take a hike before they even make a ruling. In general this doesn't happen because responsible boards don't micro-manage, and I fully support that as well. I'm not a fan of having confused lines of authority where everybody is in charge and as a result things get deadlocked. I'm all for having delegated authority and collaboration, and I don't want the highest authority to step in on every decision. However, I don't think the authority of the council should be limited in any way as it concerns the governance of the non-legal aspects of Gentoo, except that they stand for election. That is their mandate. But, others feel differently, and as I said if the council doesn't object to curtailing their authority, then I'll defer to them. Rich