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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council constituent meeting 30 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC
From:       "Steven J. Long" <slong () rathaus ! eclipse ! co ! uk>
Date:       2013-07-25 21:20:58
Message-ID: 20130725212058.GB8481 () rathaus ! eclipse ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> Roy Bamford wrote:
> > The open floor is a part of the openness and approachability of the
> > council.  Its 60 seconds well spent, even if nobody says anything.
> 
> The concern that was raised was that when it does get used it is rare
> for anything to get accomplished.  The desire is to have issues raised
> and debated on the lists first.
> 
> I don't have a big problem with open floor - I just think it is a bit
> of a waste of time.  If somebody wants to raise an issue they need
> only ask.

It's the "only ask" bit that isn't so easy: emailing someone you don't know, or
raising a bug when you're used to it, or are unsure what kind of response you'll
get, can be tricky; but you may still have something you'd like to bring to the
Council. It's only 60 seconds, and I think it keeps the idea of openness and
approachability in the forefront.
I'd keep it, and expect it to be used for last-minute messages, or reading-up on
late-breaking info on agenda items.

> >> - vote on meeting format 2: "shift council votes to mail instead of
> >> IRC"
> >
> > Please keep voting in public.  Its good for accountability.
> > If not in IRC, find a way to publish who voted and now.
> > Council do not get a secret ballot.
> 
> Agreed.  I don't think the intent of that item was ever to REPLACE
> in-person voting with email.  I think the intent was to allow for it
> so that when a critical issue comes up a week after the agenda is
> already set that everybody doesn't have to wait 5 weeks for the
> following council meeting.  It seems really odd to have a 100-post
> flamewar with no immediate action, and then to dredge up the topic a
> month later and vote, and then have another 100-post flameware to talk
> about the outcome.  I don't think we need off-the-cuff decisions, but
> if a topic is ripe for a decision we should have a way to actually
> take care of it.

That seems to me more a function of the ML, than the decisions themselves. It's
dumb to have a flamewar when the decision has already been made. The only thing
to discuss thereafter is implementation and support for the "minority" be that via
USE-flags, in overlay, or none, ie: forums/-user ML.
If Council members are going to be more involved in the mailing-list, as suggested,
I think that will take a lot of the sting out of it. The discussion will have some of
you involved, so it will be kept less flammable, and there will be more of a feeling
that it is leading to a conclusion, rather than a feeling that it can be kick-started
again at any point, and thus more focus.
 
> Public debate and votes only make sense.  Bugs might be a useful way
> to record this (much as is done with the trustees).

If you do have something that must be done in-between times, then I agree that
bugs are a much more transparent manner of recording it, even if they are locked
for confidential matters.

Regard,
steveL
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

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