1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been used |
3 |
> multiple times in the past and ive pointed out a few times (but apparently no |
4 |
> one has noticed). treat it like any other item of business. |
5 |
> - it is announced on the gentoo-dev mailing list as an item (so it has to be |
6 |
> posted weeks ahead of time) |
7 |
> - if the developer community really has a problem, issues will be aired |
8 |
> - once issues are aired out, vote on it like any other item |
9 |
> - post exact changes to the mailing list as part of the meeting summary |
10 |
> again, if there are real issues with the changes, people will complain. |
11 |
> council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make the |
12 |
> important decisions*. if the decision made really pisses off the community, |
13 |
> again you will hear about it and you can take the response into consideration. |
14 |
> plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like your ass will remain in |
15 |
> power. wringing your hands over nonexistent issues is simply wasting |
16 |
> everybody's time. |
17 |
> -mike |
18 |
> |
19 |
Perhaps it would be too simple, but why not put the method of amendment |
20 |
to a vote of the development community and settle this? |
21 |
-- prevents this issue reoccurring every time GLEP-39 needs to be |
22 |
amended (which seems to be often) |
23 |
-- the council does face the dev community every year at election time, |
24 |
so they cannot run unchecked. |
25 |
|
26 |
The council power is also limited by the Trustees, the Board, and in |
27 |
some cases Infra. I consider the possibility of run-away stupidity to |
28 |
be minimal. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Andrew D Kirch |