1 |
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:06:52 -0600 |
2 |
Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Next topic on the (long) list: how do we go about amending GLEP39? |
5 |
> This is by the way a blocker for part of the previous discussion about |
6 |
> meeting format, i.e. getting rid of proxies and slacker mark. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I will keep my opinion for myself until later in order to not bias the |
9 |
> discussion. I will try and present the facts as I see them but as |
10 |
> neutrally as possible. This is the result of lots of discussions with |
11 |
> lots of yous. Feel free to add to this, I'm not going to pretend I've |
12 |
> heard it all. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> There are various schools of thought here, and we can divide them |
15 |
> using mainly two axes. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> One is about whether we can actually modify GLEP39 or not. Some think |
18 |
> that GLEP39 is so fundamental that it can't be changed, period. A less |
19 |
> extremist faction think that although it can't be changed we can |
20 |
> decide to write another and switch to it if enough of the right people |
21 |
> agree (TBD, see below). And then there's those who think that GLEP39 |
22 |
> can be amended under the right conditions (see below again). |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
I think it is clear that we can change or replace GLEP39. The question |
26 |
is who can do it and how. |
27 |
|
28 |
> The other axis is about how we agree we can amend GLEP39 or switch to |
29 |
> an entirely different text. Some think that as long as GLEP39 was |
30 |
> voted by the whole dev population, in order to change it we need all |
31 |
> devs to vote the change. Some others think that the whole point of |
32 |
> electing a council is about delegating your vote and making the |
33 |
> maneuvering of this large ship that Gentoo is a lot easier than if we |
34 |
> had to resort to all-devs vote for everything. The required majority |
35 |
> for each alternative (all devs vote, or council members only) is a |
36 |
> detail right now, but will need to be discussed at some point. |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
Council as we know it was created by GLEP39, and GLEP39 is the one of |
40 |
several alternatives which was chosen by a vote of the developer |
41 |
community. So in a sense, Council is serving at the pleasure of the |
42 |
developers, and GLEP39 describes the rules the developers want for |
43 |
the council (or wanted in 2005 at any rate). |
44 |
|
45 |
So it is conceivable that if council were to replace GLEP39, they would |
46 |
be working against the explicit wishes of the community. This leads |
47 |
into your next sub-axis, which is a harder problem. For now here, I'll |
48 |
just say that "significant" changes to GLEP39 probably require a vote |
49 |
of the developer community. And I think GLEP39 supports that, in this |
50 |
way: Glep39 says "This proposal has nothing to say about GLEPs.", and |
51 |
in particular, it does not address how it itself can be changed. I |
52 |
*think* that suggests that significant changes would require the same |
53 |
process that got us to GLEP39 in the first place, but that is really a |
54 |
question for Grant (g2boojum) and Ciaran (ciaranm). That would be |
55 |
primarily Grant, I think, because I asked ciaranm something about |
56 |
GLEP39 once, and as I recall, he told me that Grant was the primary |
57 |
author. |
58 |
|
59 |
> Then there's a sub-axis. In the case we allow the council members to |
60 |
> vote on GLEP39 changes to make things easier, would it be the same if |
61 |
> we were to switch from GLEP39 to a completely different text or would |
62 |
> this require an all-devs vote? And even in the case we're only |
63 |
> changing GLEP39, how major can the change be before we have to go back |
64 |
> to the whole dev population? Because it's certainly possible to change |
65 |
> GLEP39 to such an extent that it becomes an entirely different thing. |
66 |
> Can we actually quantify how big a change is? |
67 |
> |
68 |
|
69 |
I don't know. But we can infer a couple things. The main thrusts of |
70 |
GLEP39 are (1) Council must hold at least one open meeting a month |
71 |
(Council must not be moribund and council must not work in secret), and |
72 |
(2) To meet, council must have a quorum, and (3) council members must |
73 |
show up now and then or send proxies. I don't think council has the |
74 |
authority to change fundamentals like those without concurrence of the |
75 |
developer community. |
76 |
|
77 |
On the other hand, we've already decided that rather than hold an |
78 |
election when a council member leaves council instead we go to the next |
79 |
slot on the ballot from the election which chose council. |
80 |
|
81 |
So we have implicitly accepted that some kinds of procedural changes to |
82 |
GLEP39 are OK, but I think that just replacing it would not be OK. I |
83 |
don't know how to quantify the dividing line, though. |
84 |
> There's one last group: those who don't care but will find an angle in |
85 |
> the above to make personal attacks. Please don't. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> Denis. |
88 |
> |
89 |
|
90 |
I hope that some of what I am trying to say comes through. I'm not |
91 |
being as clear as I would like, and I think that I am not sure about |
92 |
how big a change has to be to trigger a vote of the developers. |
93 |
|
94 |
Regards, |
95 |
Ferris |
96 |
-- |
97 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
98 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |