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 790D71382C5 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BC41E0C3F; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from avasout05.plus.net (avasout05.plus.net [84.93.230.250]) (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 2301CE0C2D for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:06:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.6.147] ([212.159.46.162]) by smtp with ESMTP id lSnueGxH1RvRrlSnveLKZl; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:06:55 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=NJL7BXyg c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:117 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:17 a=13zjGPudsaEWiJwPRgMA:9 a=IDLAoH9vvRlyCi78gOgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=HD4mydWwiRhi3XU497QA:9 a=ONNS8QRKHyMA:10 Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <23169.22344.839501.980448@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> From: "M. J. Everitt" Openpgp: id=BA266E0525CFAB101523351B4C30334F93C22371 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:06:53 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EAAVOsXWpz8YZ08fdhZiZIusDyjBzazsK" X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfMlVYDnLtkTGoDUbedwKZWmHEpZpLMJ+lBEdujxp+y5xN03HrtH4XkyFjWN0vJA8pnww1FGp79O9uG5eIaQwyFk/4peu8dONqju6MJLggO7Z7cz1KGko yeLGuJYXTcE+cCJlqj3M1hfeVf4T18IV9ap8Bhl3pVelxs2qKKAqql8TLzMwKTZI7BRWm87GX6mWhQ== X-Archives-Salt: 10a3626e-7898-4038-980c-51d4a513ea37 X-Archives-Hash: 1b834a8f4758cc7263405397996b50cf This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --EAAVOsXWpz8YZ08fdhZiZIusDyjBzazsK Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="uoXiv2K1Vq1QuzBvOHKpTUnr0guE0qRtM"; protected-headers="v1" From: "M. J. Everitt" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <23169.22344.839501.980448@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: --uoXiv2K1Vq1QuzBvOHKpTUnr0guE0qRtM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-GB On 13/02/18 04:59, Dean Stephens wrote: > On 02/12/18 19:39, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: >> Ulrich Mueller schrieb: >>>> I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose >>>> actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have >>>> felt this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the >>>> full council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. >>>> Thoughts? >>> By the same logic, council members should not be members of _any_ >>> project, because the council can override any project's decisions. >> QA and Comrel are special in that they can take disciplinary action ag= ainst >> non-members, which there is no recourse against except appeal to the C= ouncil. >> > At the very least: QA, Comrel, IRC ops (in every project specific > channel), planet/universe, forums, and wiki. Of those, since black > helicopter fantasies appear to be the order of the day, a ban on the > wiki could even, according to policy, keep a developer from joining or > leaving any projects (at least without assistance), so council members > should certainly not be allowed to be part of the wiki team since... > then at least there would be a council member who would have actual > knowledge of what the hypothetical problem that caused the wiki team to= > take the hypothetical step of banning someone. > There is a reasonable (not necessarily shared by me personally) school-of-thought that says that all these projects should be under the foundation 'umbrella' because they don't impact the distribution directly. They are all projects which allow the Project to function. This way, there could not be any conflict between these project and council, and foundation would remain the overseeing body .. However, I also know that the Foundation's mere existence is found to be problematic .. so this idea falls squarely on its knees at first glance .= =2E Unless perhaps WilliamH and prometheanfire can flesh out a more acceptable suggestion based on these principles perhaps? --uoXiv2K1Vq1QuzBvOHKpTUnr0guE0qRtM-- --EAAVOsXWpz8YZ08fdhZiZIusDyjBzazsK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJagnJuAAoJEGPnxnn01DHdOFIQAI71t7iHaRWO/Tfkcte3NhMI tw/+vQyP4oWf77du/N59MUZGFpn99UlEUN9l1qrTLgLI9Rpl2ME5r/PStfufIr2h YTr71Hvdc7HMnkNQ+rVrsm8ggw6usgXVPEOXQ2sDXDMiE36MwKQxCqUDzNuWjgJY qBDoQ5VETDpgjNwV4PIZnsr/nLP43t7jNdoUVya6R2XH7i9Y613jHYBNEQCPYxF0 sANrX3nyz3T6MOTpaByIgq5krKF72FvXLfJ5l7qcf0Bm3isvtEO4siipVFnP8ohN dA7F+TEdZr5mj2jjIPaPSj61JC4g+AwmXKl21eu7YwX9kRR52wDvkkOyWnXQ1RmM 83QprGc8JYa842ErVtd5YBGjGe1v7GAoDUnFoUYWsHfrTK0pD1AIMhKl8iSOWiv0 tiDa9Rmim/hyQ1A8khYzLZBuIWCVThfhhuWNuPM0j6OnaCir9puIiN/Es0wXfXox gyxojZ8P+kMu/N76+V/0E8WtU1Uievyrf9u40514FdhJYGrYgya+rTf4Q02Fd9c3 7ef3vNSp3z5NVIn9phPe5nozfOcoHQr5MlBzlVpw4B+cXYm+ykLKMwswpFWNa7nO aDfNww7oW14bM3I+fm5sX1VbtdTiP3t72VJeKZDFKo04Iuegw8Den6EqZKYtmT2c 6p2xc5o6PvYjIfCudZ53 =n3Un -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EAAVOsXWpz8YZ08fdhZiZIusDyjBzazsK--