Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-council
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-council@g.o
From: Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:57:21 +0100
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at
> > least 5 council members *if* developers want to change the size.
> 
> What is your reasoning for this?

To make sure different views are represented in council's decisions and
to make sure the decisions are well-balanced. This can be partially
accomplished with having, say, 3 council members, of course - but well,
it's 5 to make sure. 

> > I dislike the idea of stretched 2-year terms, instead I prefer having 
> > 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4 
> > council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the 
> > next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots 
> > then.
> 
> As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a 
> constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult 
> to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what 
> makes you think that?

In fact we had a constant influx of new council members constantly in
the past - which did also work somehow (I'd say it wasn't a problem in
the past). With having elections every 6 months we *could* start to
re-fill open slots with the next election (except there are more than ~2
open slots) and therefore won't have to deal with new council members
constantly but only every 6 months.

> > Anyways, this is something we can discuss - but as a change to the
> > voting procedure most likely does change or extend what's written down
> > in GLEP 39 I'd like to see a election on those changes.
> 
> I'm assuming you mean a vote by all Gentoo devs, since an election 
> generally involves voting for a person rather than a policy.

Yup, "election by all devs"

> Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in 
> the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion 
> publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then 
> take all this input into consideration and vote upon it.

In the past the council iirc didn't vote upon changes to the process of
voting for, size and lengths of terms of the council. (Adding the
_reopen_nominations candidate was something people took part in the
discussion did agree with, but there was no council or developer vote on
that.) It doesn't hurt to cast a vote by all developers on that, but
this vote does legitimate the changes voted upon.

  Tobias
Attachment:
signature.asc (Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil)
Replies:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22
-- Donnie Berkholz
References:
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22
-- Donnie Berkholz
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22
Next by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22
Previous by date:
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22
Next by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-council mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.