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 ) id 1Jxtzj-0006cn-Jq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 May 2008 01:16:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C97F2E0334; Mon, 19 May 2008 01:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.158]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EDA1E0334 for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 01:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 5so1001950ywm.46 for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 18:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.68.41 with SMTP id q41mr5770586yba.104.1211159814209; Sun, 18 May 2008 18:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.202.13 with HTTP; Sun, 18 May 2008 18:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 18:16:54 -0700 From: "Alec Warner" Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com To: "William L. Thomson Jr." Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] Cc: gentoo-project In-Reply-To: <1211088631.23374.15.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list 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> <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> <1211088631.23374.15.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4e7338bed36f6c2d X-Archives-Salt: 00123a67-f1ab-409d-acf7-304401797722 X-Archives-Hash: a684fc2ac2d89414c5d59bb8d5ca322a On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 14:12 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Richard Freeman 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). > > What percentage of the developer base, and/or community is required to > call about a global vote for Gentoo? This is not documented anywhere as far as I can tell. The 'glep' just says we have to hold an election. I have already spoken to a few of the previous officials to see if they are interested in running a council election. It has been argued that the Council controls Gentoo; and for the majority of cases I believe this is true. The question benig do we adhere to the existing policy or do we do something else. The problem is basically that besides the council there is no other body that has power (according to stated policy). Befroe the council Gentoo had 'the developers' and before 'the developers' Gentoo had TLP Managers. I would prefer that 'the developers' in this case take initiative to hold a new election. In the old republic sense 'the developers' essentially realize that they will not agree on everything and thus delegate their power and authority to a smaller group of people (council) until such time as 'the developers' deem such a body unfit to rule. Bonus for us, there is a clause in the policy that states a specific even where this is the case (said 50% attendance clause). It is my understanding that the council continues to be the council while 'the developers' hold an election for council positions. The only alternative to a whole election is unseating the members that did not attend; this is explicitly forbidden by the 50% attendance clause. > > Also where is there any policy requiring anything to be voted on? In > this case, the vote to decide if we should or should not elect a new > council. Enforce GLEP 39 clause/rule/policy or not. A vote would be more > out of respect, and democracy. Than out of policy or requirement. There isn't one; I didn't mean to imply that we should vote on whether we should hold an election or not. My comment was meant to imply that the number of folks involved in this thread is a meaningless statistic regarding what developers actually think regarding this issue. > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. > amd64/Java/Trustees > Gentoo Foundation > > I've begun poking the relevant election officials to see if they are willing to participate in an election in the upcoming weeks. -Alec -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list