From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-project+bounces-353-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1JxThz-0007JC-8Y
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 May 2008 21:12:51 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 798C4E03A3;
Sat, 17 May 2008 21:12:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.157])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556DBE03A3
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 17 May 2008 21:12:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 5so802341ywm.46
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 17 May 2008 14:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.73.41 with SMTP id v41mr4781757yba.189.1211058769958;
Sat, 17 May 2008 14:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.202.13 with HTTP; Sat, 17 May 2008 14:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b41005390805171412i657943dak24bb2695dae1c29@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 14:12:49 -0700
From: "Alec Warner" <antarus@gentoo.org>
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
To: "Richard Freeman" <rich0@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]
Cc: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>,
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <482F36F6.3080203@gentoo.org>
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
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080508233328.GA8896@comet> <482DF281.6010208@gentoo.org>
<20080516213454.538ce4e8@anaconda.krait.us>
<7c612fc60805161611w48d9e134m7437c4a29f33d79a@mail.gmail.com>
<20080517001849.4802ceec@googlemail.com>
<7c612fc60805161650w46ceb2a3sa8f60c71886c881f@mail.gmail.com>
<20080517005317.2dc1c8e1@googlemail.com> <482E30EF.4090207@gentoo.org>
<482F2826.90001@gentoo.org> <482F36F6.3080203@gentoo.org>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 01978a009b1ab8cd
X-Archives-Salt: fe7ce835-93e4-4638-84e0-741eee5a1646
X-Archives-Hash: 7d75c51168329a5768c296dd95f6d35f
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>
>> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally,
>> I don't want to vote for the council now.
>
> Then don't! Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of those
> who are represented to triumph? If that will is to not hold an election,
> wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it?
So minimally we would require a vote to determine 'the will of the
represented'. Note that this thread is insufficient to determine that
(there are plenty of devs not participating in this thread).
>
>> The problem is that we have a
>>
>> policy (which clearly needs some clearing as not everyone agrees on it)
>> and that pretending it doesn't exist or to change it and apply it
>> retroactively is a bad precedent.
>>
>
> I think the worst precedent to set would be one of following policies at any
> cost. I'd say that one of the key differences between people and machines
> is that the latter merely follow a pre-designed set of rules, while the
> former are free to do whatever is best in a given situation. Why should we
> ignore common sense in favor of "if p then q ; p==true ; therefore q"?
>
> Policies are important. It is important that they be well thought out. It
> is also important that when a policy is dumb that people not blindly follow
> it. I hope that when infrastructure is maintaining systems in accordance
> with some standard procedure that when they see an error in the procedure
> that will cause major disruption they don't just say "well, the council or
> whoever approved this procedure - they must want me to hose the cvs server."
So the important thing to realize is that it is not trivial to
determine when policy is 'dumb.'
I personally think the policy is very clear and effective; it makes
the council accountable and it essentially prevents what happened (the
council slacked off during an important meeting). How else should we
punish them? Is there any punishment that does not involve an
election? I would entertain alternative punishments. I would not
entertain 'changing policy and doing nothing' as that kind of implies
council members can basically miss any meetings without repercussions
and that is untrue in my reckoning.
>
> If the council does decide to hold new elections, could they at least make a
> point to nuke this bullet item in GLEP 39? I think the whole slacker policy
> is a bit harsh in general - maybe it could be adjusted somewhat. At the
> very least, there should be some policy regarding notice for meetings - if
> somebody is on vacation for two weeks it would be a bummer for them to be
> marked a slacker because they didn't hear about a meeting...
> --
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list