From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-5090-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292FA1382AC
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 01:00:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85124E0933;
Sun, 19 Jun 2016 01:00:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vk0-f66.google.com (mail-vk0-f66.google.com [209.85.213.66])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA13FE0920
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f66.google.com with SMTP id t7so17621253vkf.2
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 17:59:59 -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:from:date:message-id
:subject:to;
bh=Yd3Tdxvk2k+OHNCUQcI9QRf6z9n/FQm1BoWnm5cJ9XQ=;
b=RH8GPHhtFPrz0qgBuESquok4mcVhYoCnJIG14/43XakuksL1L+89nb6reYaOv38/5w
2PmEgN07S7eyyPLoOY81IY0cBfOiuGrTxiOhNRof52Vhy2je6677XQRWIHDQfxEEQC5l
M5DKslsaxLLYdRsMBPSkj+N201d9GQX2qAsXEygNMh+VpmVbiBreSFF63VPVJddyNIzj
9PaBDyLGCDKH/u3OFrxYGLHs8ztwUBFW7TgmuytN6EshJL6Ic6dNbRemCMez9uTBAoVV
f+klkbTNCamH4KbXr2ZXhqNXQhdfsm8TQCzXY6o8MYkIr2B8S5NGzPF9u+dbWr7NFlwl
QMeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=Yd3Tdxvk2k+OHNCUQcI9QRf6z9n/FQm1BoWnm5cJ9XQ=;
b=hvUbexvVF+N2uB2kXyM2QiXFqKvk3ZLDrMSQS4H1ou85YkG0UrdOh+jDJjwo1bQdy3
KgCtRlEQCzlt1IQau0Zd1JKeAyTpPTaAyzhQB34lIt4SqdIGxTTJYbf8aBduokGDyZnG
PnoeZkOS1mJgkxo3du003uo6+TWDZlm7fr1Q3GTVeJZJ00J0v5PbEHXMS7DsDrooEHxF
PJGwopTgYcZLhFuU5/R0hyRva/7BEdt2bPbJ5JaubsEonQwrQahNRwukwZthpTurq7ZT
W/w9rblx2cKni2jdUlwwsiMNk2ljuy4EvEWAyXXsSYzBJ7mP/1E3UK0m+QnTQht1hJJw
2AgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJjl1uSdinZmU7TR2vzhycsswx3v2qv8qn3UzVZBVt2ay/kTcX7IRKbOYCDqFUBxvRJdCz/vjaa72u1qw==
X-Received: by 10.31.96.207 with SMTP id u198mr3154856vkb.50.1466297998833;
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 17:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.70.155 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 17:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <737b511f-3fc5-9d4d-288d-3fa0cb9681c8@gentoo.org>
References: <3d8197f7-7fb0-0d61-ec39-44a0789bce2f@gentoo.org>
<20160614215034.2e335a3a.mgorny@gentoo.org> <1466266798.10506.14.camel@gentoo.org>
<737b511f-3fc5-9d4d-288d-3fa0cb9681c8@gentoo.org>
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:59:57 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: CkypsVarKZb180dJx9qkOAwePnY
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_ndR0iNS8wvGB4RXh+5DbVyDvojG1eZPCA1OJac1Qh4CA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council 2016 / 2017 election
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 1201753c-9cbc-491b-b447-71f388244e0a
X-Archives-Hash: 1a3b1843c7c8e8a8e96c032f38645732
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> The less admin/bureaucratic overhead we have, the better. From what I
> gather even the Council feels this way, but that's just my two cents.
>
++
Certainly I feel this way. I'd say that most of m peers would agree.
Not that this ultimately matters since for the next two weeks the
final say in what the council should be really rests with the
developers.
This topic has come up before. If you actually look at what powers
the council has in practice they are:
1. Approve GLEPs.
2. Appeals for comrel actions.
3. Resolve disagreements within the community (such as between projects, etc).
The ability for the council itself to actually get anything done is
purely dependent on how much its members want to spend their time
doing it themselves. The council doesn't actually have the power to
make anybody do anything. It does have the power to prevent somebody
from doing something, and to pick a side in a dispute to settle it.
For example, there was a dispute over how games should be managed, and
the Council decided that developers could form a new games project if
they wished, or maintain games outside of the project, and that it was
not necessary to use the games eclass or follow the previous games
project policies. What the Council can't actually do is force
somebody to go in and modify all the games ebuilds to stop using the
eclass. Maybe we could have all the games that use the eclass
treecleaned, but that would be like swatting a fly with a howitzer.
So, until somebody wants to actually implement the changes we're left
with the status quo. However, nobody is actually complaining about
the status quo, so it can't be that bad. Indeed, if somebody thought
it was bad, they'd just fix it, and with the council decisions in hand
nobody could interfere with their work.
Ultimately that is the practical role of the council. If there is
something you want to do in Gentoo, then DO IT. And if somebody gets
in your way, the Council can get them out of your way, or help find a
middle way that lets everybody accomplish their goals.
When it comes down to actually leading initiatives, well, we already
have GLEP 39 which basically says that anybody can do it. You don't
need to be on the Council to make a big project happen. You just need
to appeal to devs to contribute. If your appeal falls on deaf ears,
trust me, being on the council isn't going to make it go any better.
To the degree that any of us have sway in the community we had it
before we ever joined the council, and maintain it apart from our
participation in the council.
Now, if you view the Council as a badge of honor or something to be
put on a resume, then I certainly can understand frustration when
people with low commit rates/etc or low rates of making big proposals
aren't on the Council. However, if you view the role of the Council
as running interference for the people who really are getting the work
done, then you might appreciate that it isn't always beneficial to
have the Council buried in implementing portage enhancements or
whatever. Often "calmer heads" is one of the more important
attributes, as well as technical competence.
Oh, and a willingness to write up meeting summaries never hurts. :)
--
Rich