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

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> W dniu czw, 28.06.2018 o godzinie 13∶24 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:14 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >    a. the Council decision in question is final (i.e. a general
> > >       resolution can not be used to bypass the Council),
> >
> > One question that this brings up in my mind is the duration of these
> > decisions, because Council decisions are never really final.  The
> > Council can override its own decisions, or the decision of a prior
> > Council.
>
> The meaning of this is explained in the parentheses, so please stop
> trying to bend it.  The only thing it means is that you can't call a GR
> to pass a motion that didn't go through the Council vote yet.

I was not suggesting that this meaning wasn't plain.  I was just
saying that no Council decision is final as a way to bring up the
topic of duration/etc.  I'm not proposing changing the wording of this
part of the GLEP.

> When Council makes an apparently bad decision, the developers can give
> it a yellow card.  The Council is still in the game and can technically
> can do the same thing again -- however, it has been given an explicit
> warning, so I don't think we really need to consider it carelessly
> passing the same motion again.

Sure, that makes sense, and that wasn't actually what I got out of it
the first time.  I just assumed this was a way to just do direct
democracy, and not merely a way to strike down an individual decision.

> No.  The GLEP repeats that multiple times: GR is not a generic voting
> mechanism but a failsafe.  I'd say calling for a global developer vote
> is within Council's regular powers, and it's entirely outside the scope
> of this GLEP.

Ok, that wasn't what I thought you were proposing, and I think that
makes more sense.

>
> It really seems that you didn't understand the GLEP, and instead started
> processing with your own vision of GR that's not related to my proposal.
>

Indeed.

-- 
Rich