From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65E021382C5 for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B665E0B3B; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3B7E09CD for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.5.108] (pool-96-232-204-110.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [96.232.204.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ryao) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D152E335C05 for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 15:47:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Richard Yao Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 (1.0) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 11:47:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-05-13 Message-Id: References: <20180502201115.22894110@sf> <20180502233920.503dfee8@sf> <1525359641.9351.4.camel@gentoo.org> <10e72474-abb6-350f-1f8a-b27959c55693@iee.org> <05DCDEE6-E941-45C0-84BE-41A056C961C2@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15E302) X-Archives-Salt: f78d4b92-033f-433c-8707-e42efd5e1177 X-Archives-Hash: 3d5c843e21d2f153793c3d824f3b49da > On May 3, 2018, at 11:34 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >=20 >> On 03/05/18 16:20, Richard Yao wrote: >>=20 >>>> On May 3, 2018, at 11:10 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:= >>>>=20 >>>> On 03/05/18 16:00, David Seifert wrote: >>>> While we're in the process of creating busywork, I'd also like to >>>> request a casual audit/overview of >>>>=20 >>>> - Ada >>>> - Antivirus project >>>> - Cjk >>>> - Embedded >>>> - Tcltk >>>> - Theology >>>>=20 >>>> I would like a personalised 1-page report per project from the council,= >>>> with confirmation from 2 out of the big 4 auditing firms (Grant >>>> Thornton is also permissible). >>>>=20 >>>> Kind Regards >>>> David >>>>=20 >>> And for those who didn't notice it .. >>>=20 >>> >>>=20 >>> +1 to Soap also. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> For anyone still in any doubt about the council's purpose .. they >>> rubber-stamp (ie ratify) or revoke (ie. cancel) proposals. They don't >>> come UP with the proposals, that's YOUR job. They don't DO work - they >>> just meet up and take credit. If you think they SHOULD be doing some >>> WORK .. maybe you want to vote in some new members next election cycle .= . >> This is correct, although I wonder who would want to run for the council i= f it were to entail doing more than just saying yes or no to things. They ca= n already volunteer to do those other things outside of the council. >>> >>>=20 >>=20 > Whilst I do agree with the synopsis, I fail really to see the point of > the council's existence .. ditch it and just have a dev vote. Quorum+ > majority carries .. why bother with it?! yanno?! The council=E2=80=99s existence frees the rest of us from having to consider= every little thing. This solves the amadyl=E2=80=99s law slowdown from ever= yone trying to educate themselves on every project decision before voting, a= ssuming that they all can keep up. Also, getting 7 people=E2=80=99s schedule= s to line up for meetings and votes is hard enough. Getting >100 people=E2=80= =99s schedules to line up would be a nightmare. It is not that it cannot be done, but I see a switch to a majority vote maki= ng the decision making process chaotic. We do give up some things by delegat= ing decision making to the council, but I feel that the benefits outweigh th= e downsides. If you disagree with a plan, it is far easier to take your case= to 7 people than to over 100. It is not like any of them do not have the pr= oject=E2=80=99s best interest at heart either, so a well reasoned argument s= hould prevail. Not to mention, if nearly everyone really does agree, it is h= ighly unlikely that the 7 council members would be among those who disagree.=