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 874A01381F3 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:03:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF679E0A45; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A628E0A44 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id e11so15271107iej.15 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:03:15 -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; bh=cTFErARy/2E0oQ8a3ajVP3uMpNFWvYvIIILgFdx4oIE=; b=pVr5LM8mGyoDH5elvWfvxsp9jASFccw0rorIwCBndK1652VMtwvRbslIe2MtN59ZjX AAwXc6r1WCBCU8yXkFY0kw9vL3p13som8W43L8v43mMGm/0JDBZd0NtnRaXvHRUBkcSA ta5FVyDkfWPD9MfAf5yqY3efwBbreE+xM7L73wmroMkRSmRztz3y2hUgtTxfTJbw0+N/ sIfoK3MaaxPHZOL9G+GxH7D+DirvdMoHfaavGyNq5XoWEtXTQTe6baA2FuNDOO+gB5oX q1UimECwnCUEENlNC0TpDfOA2y0F5Cvymynf4rp40aFkgn48nUZHkWi1wfsXLoYlwfwC wKEQ== 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 10.50.4.69 with SMTP id i5mr11292051igi.16.1371693795570; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.92.166 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:03:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130619205029.44e1a3a3@gentoo.org> References: <51C21229.9070105@gentoo.org> <20130619205029.44e1a3a3@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:03:15 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fIxASnksBDtat-HRfp6yBO-nyVQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] On the way Devrel is constituted From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 33a2dea9-6b63-46f9-aa88-3043b07139ee X-Archives-Hash: 400e3251c4ddd92c17e8d3ea20bcf3c5 On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:18:49 +0200 > hasufell wrote: > [...] >> Who controls devrel? >> Simple answer: no one. > > And this is good IMHO. Judiciary should be an independent power. The council is elected. No sane organization (democratic or corporate or whatever) just has a self-appointing judiciary. I'm not convinced we even need an independent judiciary, but nations that have independent judiciaries still have elected representatives appoint them. They also often have a means for elected officials to overturn their decisions (at least in the direction of pardons). Lifetime appointments make sense when you're talking about basic laws and civil rights which change on a timespan of centuries, but not when you're talking about a computer operating system distribution that changes on a scale of months. Corporations have elected boards appoint executives who appoint the members of HR/Security. Democracies elect representatives who appoint members of the judiciary. My feeling is that QA and Devrel should be council appointed. They can of course recommend their own members, and Council can give whatever deference they feel is appropriate to the recommendation. If you wouldn't trust somebody to appoint QA/Devrel members, then you shouldn't be electing them to the Council. Likewise, if you wouldn't trust somebody to not just seize control of the entire distribution (infra, DNS, bank accounts, the Gentoo name, firing the Council, etc) you shouldn't be electing them to the Trustees (a few years ago our sole remaining Trustee was contemplating basically just turning the entire distro over to a benevolent dictator (our founder), who legally wouldn't be accountable to anybody including the Council (or even the devs in general depending on whether the bylaws were modified)). These are real governing bodies that essentially have all the powers you don't want to give to anybody (well, save unelected QA/Devrel team members) whether you like it or not (at least within the boundaries of the Foundation charter/bylaws). I agree with hasufell's recommendation, although I would extend it to QA as well. QA and Devrel are "special" projects and should probably be accountable to the Council. I think they should be largely self-governing much as infra is (even though infra is fairly dependent on the trustees for funding/etc). It isn't about control so much as accountability and mandate. I'd of course recommend that the Council should be hands-off as long as things are going well, and there really isn't anything that suggests they wouldn't be (certainly this has been the trend with both the Council and Trustees). Part of me is thinking that we should just write up this proposal as a GLEP and go from there. By all means devs should register their opinions on it as it firms up, and we can leave it to the new Council to decide how to handle it. Rich