1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
2 |
> The devs have a voice one time of the year: when it comes time to vote. |
3 |
> But what about the rest of the year? What happens when the person you |
4 |
> voted for sucks? You are mostly powerless to do anything other than be |
5 |
> really vocal in what seems like a never ending battle. That needs to |
6 |
> change. I'm not quite sure how. But I'd like to see the dev body have a |
7 |
> year-round voice in the council. Either via quick votes year-round |
8 |
> on topics or simply by having discussion in the channel. Devs should have |
9 |
> a right to voice their concerns to the council and engage in interactive |
10 |
> conversations without being labeled troll. |
11 |
|
12 |
I'm not sure about that, but we can easily give it a try. |
13 |
|
14 |
What I'd like to see for sure is a formal rule on who can decide to |
15 |
modify or change parts of glep 39. As it's the council's constitution |
16 |
somehow, we have two options from my pov (besides that a former council |
17 |
did decide the council itself can change it's rules): |
18 |
- a large majority (at least 5 out of 7) of council members needs to ack |
19 |
the change |
20 |
- changes to glep 39 require a vote with all developers participating |
21 |
and a large majority (2/3 or 3/4) needs to ack the suggested change |
22 |
|
23 |
Also I'd like to require commit messages to gleps (and especially glep |
24 |
39) being useful and denote based on which decision by whom that change |
25 |
got made. For example the following commit message I'd consider quite |
26 |
useless (at least two or three years ago): |
27 |
|
28 |
"Add the one person one vote clause to GLEP 39 as agreed." [1] |
29 |
|
30 |
Who did agree? Where is that noted down? ... and so on. |
31 |
|
32 |
> An EAPI review committee could work well also. As long as we could get |
33 |
> non bias people in there. |
34 |
|
35 |
I was thinking about that for quite some time and as long as we get some |
36 |
non-biased people in there we should try that as well. |
37 |
|
38 |
> The council should be more about community vs technical issues only. |
39 |
> We have lots of top level projects within Gentoo which have simply given |
40 |
> up on the council as being an outlet to accomplish anything useful. |
41 |
> It should be our job to look at the projects in Gentoo. Look at the ones |
42 |
> that have a healthy community and encourage and promote them in ways. |
43 |
|
44 |
ack |
45 |
|
46 |
> For example prefix comes to mind. It was a project I did not like at |
47 |
> first. I'm not even a user. And there are things I surely don't like |
48 |
> about it as is. But there is community support and it's the icing on the |
49 |
> cake for some. So I'll back the fsck up and give credit where it's due. |
50 |
> This is a perfectly good example of a project/fork that needs to come |
51 |
> back home. Perhaps it's time to cherry pick some more stuff/people out |
52 |
> of Sunrise? |
53 |
|
54 |
prefix is a really good example, yeah. Nearly noone knows it, but it's |
55 |
really cool to have for example a virtualized windows machine running on |
56 |
a linux host. The windows box then runs prefix in interix. Not that it's |
57 |
really useful at all (hey, it's slow as hell) - but it's very |
58 |
interesting that such things are possible and it's definitively an |
59 |
eyecatcher on expos. prefix is one of Gentoo's most underrated projects. |
60 |
|
61 |
As for Sunrise I do think that's what we already do - but: getting users |
62 |
more actively involved in Sunrise makes them happy, plus it's easier for |
63 |
us to recruit new developers. Therefore: push Sunrise! I very much |
64 |
disliked how the Sunrise project has been started some years ago, but in |
65 |
the end we do need to integrate it a tad better to make it even more |
66 |
useful for both users and developers. |
67 |
|
68 |
> desultory points out any two council members can decide to approve anything, |
69 |
> and that decision is considered to be equivalent to a full council vote |
70 |
> until the next meeting. I vaguely recall that rule. I'm not sure about you, |
71 |
> but I think that is a little to much power to put in the hands of a few. |
72 |
> Any dev mind if we dump that power? |
73 |
|
74 |
It's quite much power in quite a few hands, but in the end that's some |
75 |
kind of "last resort rule". All council members should be smart enough |
76 |
(and i do consider all of us being smart enough) to know when that "last |
77 |
resort" becomes active. Therefore I think it doesn't hurt to have such a |
78 |
rule in place. |
79 |
|
80 |
> Meetings will likely go back to one time per month and be +m with +v be |
81 |
> handed out per request with open chat pre/post meetings. The reason for |
82 |
> this is to keep the meetings on-track. I won't engage in endless |
83 |
> discussions. Facts can be presented. They will be reviewed on merit, |
84 |
> technical and social. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> The reason the meetings should go back to monthly is to allow those who |
87 |
> are council members in Gentoo to accomplish things other than the |
88 |
> council only. We all have personal lives and we all have our respective |
89 |
> roles we play outside of the council. Another note on meetings. The time |
90 |
> they are held currently don't fit well with my work schedule. |
91 |
|
92 |
I'm all for going back to monthly meetings and make them a tad more |
93 |
organized. As I summarized in the last few minutes of our last council |
94 |
meeting - we do have rules in place to keep our meetings organized, we |
95 |
just need to follow them. |
96 |
|
97 |
As for meeting times we can (that was mentioned somewhere?) move to 21 |
98 |
or 22 utc - if we're going to monthly meetings and restrict meetings to |
99 |
say 60 or 90 minutes. If we have an agenda sent out a week ago everyone |
100 |
should be able to be well prepared for the meeting so a restriction on |
101 |
length of meetings wouldn't hurt. |
102 |
|
103 |
If council@g.o is updated we can quickly vote on meeting times. |
104 |
|
105 |
> Thank you all and I will try not to let you down. Unless you were one of |
106 |
> the ones who wanted to me lose. Then sorry, but I'm going to have fun |
107 |
> disappointing you, by doing what is best for Gentoo. |
108 |
|
109 |
And that's basically our job: taking care of Gentoo. |
110 |
|
111 |
> So lets have some damn fun again !@#$ |
112 |
|
113 |
yay! |
114 |
|
115 |
- Tobias |
116 |
|
117 |
|
118 |
[1] |
119 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.txt?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 |