1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> > I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at |
3 |
> > least 5 council members *if* developers want to change the size. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> What is your reasoning for this? |
6 |
|
7 |
To make sure different views are represented in council's decisions and |
8 |
to make sure the decisions are well-balanced. This can be partially |
9 |
accomplished with having, say, 3 council members, of course - but well, |
10 |
it's 5 to make sure. |
11 |
|
12 |
> > I dislike the idea of stretched 2-year terms, instead I prefer having |
13 |
> > 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4 |
14 |
> > council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the |
15 |
> > next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots |
16 |
> > then. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a |
19 |
> constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult |
20 |
> to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what |
21 |
> makes you think that? |
22 |
|
23 |
In fact we had a constant influx of new council members constantly in |
24 |
the past - which did also work somehow (I'd say it wasn't a problem in |
25 |
the past). With having elections every 6 months we *could* start to |
26 |
re-fill open slots with the next election (except there are more than ~2 |
27 |
open slots) and therefore won't have to deal with new council members |
28 |
constantly but only every 6 months. |
29 |
|
30 |
> > Anyways, this is something we can discuss - but as a change to the |
31 |
> > voting procedure most likely does change or extend what's written down |
32 |
> > in GLEP 39 I'd like to see a election on those changes. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> I'm assuming you mean a vote by all Gentoo devs, since an election |
35 |
> generally involves voting for a person rather than a policy. |
36 |
|
37 |
Yup, "election by all devs" |
38 |
|
39 |
> Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in |
40 |
> the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion |
41 |
> publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then |
42 |
> take all this input into consideration and vote upon it. |
43 |
|
44 |
In the past the council iirc didn't vote upon changes to the process of |
45 |
voting for, size and lengths of terms of the council. (Adding the |
46 |
_reopen_nominations candidate was something people took part in the |
47 |
discussion did agree with, but there was no council or developer vote on |
48 |
that.) It doesn't hurt to cast a vote by all developers on that, but |
49 |
this vote does legitimate the changes voted upon. |
50 |
|
51 |
Tobias |