1 |
On E, 2009-06-29 at 12:32 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:12 -0500, Dale wrote: |
3 |
> > Roy Bamford wrote: |
4 |
> > > |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case |
7 |
> > > exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the |
8 |
> > > council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a |
9 |
> > > decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go |
10 |
> > > there. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council |
13 |
> > > does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real |
14 |
> > > life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed |
15 |
> > > proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of |
16 |
> > > council members who may be proxied at any single meeting. |
17 |
> > > |
18 |
> > > As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether. |
19 |
> > > We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council |
20 |
> > > members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that |
21 |
> > > does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the |
22 |
> > > council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that |
23 |
> > > decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers. |
24 |
> > > |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > I'm just picking a random message so no fingers being pointed here. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask. Why is that EVERYONE on the |
29 |
> > council must be there or have someone there to represent them? Would |
30 |
> > Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> All that's required is a quorum (4 out of 7) to hold a meeting. |
33 |
|
34 |
And when you have one less, it apparently immediately means a new |
35 |
council election. |
36 |
I guess that's one reason these days to always appoint proxies. The |
37 |
other is otherwise getting a missed meeting record, then a slacker mark |
38 |
and then a boot. |
39 |
And then there's the long tradition of always when a meeting |
40 |
un-attendance is foreseen a proxy getting appointed. |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
I guess the new council can think about this, but |
44 |
a) time spent on figuring out such rules and whatnot to have to deal |
45 |
with unfortunately happening corner cases is time better spent on |
46 |
getting actual Gentoo improving done |
47 |
b) I don't think the council itself should be having so much to do with |
48 |
any such figuring out |
49 |
c) there are far bigger reaching restructuring ideas in the works for |
50 |
future proposals |
51 |
|
52 |
> > I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a |
53 |
> > developer. If it is not that way now, it should be changed. I been |
54 |
> > using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy. I |
55 |
> > would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote. |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > As a American that sees his own country's government getting out of |
58 |
> > control, never count on common sense. Elected people rarely have any. |
59 |
> > If they do during the election, it disappears after taking their |
60 |
> > position. I think the vast majority of people here have seen that over |
61 |
> > the years. |
62 |
> > |
63 |
> > My $0.02 worth. |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > Dale |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> > :-) :-) |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Regards, |
70 |
> Ferris |
71 |
-- |
72 |
Mart Raudsepp |
73 |
Gentoo Developer |
74 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
75 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |