[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
From:       Mart Raudsepp <leio () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2009-06-29 22:40:27
Message-ID: 1246315227.11253.5.camel () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]


On E, 2009-06-29 at 12:32 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:12 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Roy Bamford wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case
> > > exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the
> > > council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a
> > > decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go
> > > there.
> > >
> > > I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council
> > > does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real
> > > life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed
> > > proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of
> > > council members who may be proxied at any single meeting.  
> > >
> > > As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether.
> > > We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council
> > > members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that
> > > does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the
> > > council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that
> > > decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers.  
> > >
> > 
> > I'm just picking a random message so no fingers being pointed here.
> > 
> > As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask.  Why is that EVERYONE on the
> > council must be there or have someone there to represent them?  Would
> > Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? 
> > 
> All that's required is a quorum (4 out of 7) to hold a meeting.

And when you have one less, it apparently immediately means a new
council election.
I guess that's one reason these days to always appoint proxies. The
other is otherwise getting a missed meeting record, then a slacker mark
and then a boot.
And then there's the long tradition of always when a meeting
un-attendance is foreseen a proxy getting appointed.


I guess the new council can think about this, but
a) time spent on figuring out such rules and whatnot to have to deal
with unfortunately happening corner cases is time better spent on
getting actual Gentoo improving done
b) I don't think the council itself should be having so much to do with
any such figuring out
c) there are far bigger reaching restructuring ideas in the works for
future proposals

> > I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a
> > developer.  If it is not that way now, it should be changed.  I been
> > using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy.  I
> > would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote.
> > 
> > As a American that sees his own country's government getting out of
> > control, never count on common sense.  Elected people rarely have any. 
> > If they do during the election, it disappears after taking their
> > position.  I think the vast majority of people here have seen that over
> > the years.
> > 
> > My $0.02 worth.
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-) 
> 
> Regards,
> Ferris
-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]