| 1 |
On Thursday 02 July 2009 10:54:05 Tobias Scherbaum wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The devs have a voice one time of the year: when it comes time to vote. |
| 4 |
> > But what about the rest of the year? What happens when the person you |
| 5 |
> > voted for sucks? You are mostly powerless to do anything other than be |
| 6 |
> > really vocal in what seems like a never ending battle. That needs to |
| 7 |
> > change. I'm not quite sure how. But I'd like to see the dev body have a |
| 8 |
> > year-round voice in the council. Either via quick votes year-round |
| 9 |
> > on topics or simply by having discussion in the channel. Devs should have |
| 10 |
> > a right to voice their concerns to the council and engage in interactive |
| 11 |
> > conversations without being labeled troll. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm not sure about that, but we can easily give it a try. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What I'd like to see for sure is a formal rule on who can decide to |
| 16 |
> modify or change parts of glep 39. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
we already have a formal method: |
| 19 |
- change is proposed ahead of time like any other business for council to |
| 20 |
review (which means the community sees it) |
| 21 |
- council votes and assuming it passed |
| 22 |
- the dev/council lists are notified of changes (see previous summaries for |
| 23 |
example) |
| 24 |
- if there is still no problems, then the project page/GLEP is amended |
| 25 |
officially |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
if the dev community has a problem, then it should have come up like any other |
| 28 |
issue along the way. if the only way to resolve the greater dev concerns is |
| 29 |
with a vote, then that is how it goes. needing a full community vote all the |
| 30 |
time is a huge time waste for absolutely no gain. |
| 31 |
-mike |
Archives