Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:21:18
Message-Id: 4AAB2FC1.3070807@trelane.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business by Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been used > multiple times in the past and ive pointed out a few times (but apparently no > one has noticed). treat it like any other item of business. > - it is announced on the gentoo-dev mailing list as an item (so it has to be > posted weeks ahead of time) > - if the developer community really has a problem, issues will be aired > - once issues are aired out, vote on it like any other item > - post exact changes to the mailing list as part of the meeting summary > again, if there are real issues with the changes, people will complain. > council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make the > important decisions*. if the decision made really pisses off the community, > again you will hear about it and you can take the response into consideration. > plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like your ass will remain in > power. wringing your hands over nonexistent issues is simply wasting > everybody's time. > -mike >
Perhaps it would be too simple, but why not put the method of amendment to a vote of the development community and settle this? -- prevents this issue reoccurring every time GLEP-39 needs to be amended (which seems to be often) -- the council does face the dev community every year at election time, so they cannot run unchecked. The council power is also limited by the Trustees, the Board, and in some cases Infra. I consider the possibility of run-away stupidity to be minimal. -- Andrew D Kirch