1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 2009.06.28 23:14, Ferris McCormick wrote: |
5 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
6 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
7 |
> |
8 |
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100 |
9 |
> Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
> |
11 |
[snip] |
12 |
|
13 |
> > What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by |
14 |
> > entirely by non gentoo developer proxies? |
15 |
> > Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel |
16 |
> > bound |
17 |
> > by decisions that such a meeting reached? |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Currently, yes. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so |
23 |
> it |
24 |
> > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> It's worse than that. I think 'common sense' is subjective and thus |
27 |
> not a useful method of interpretation. Even if one disagrees with |
28 |
> that |
29 |
> statement, 'common sense' is certainly cultural (do you suppose |
30 |
> common |
31 |
> sense in N. Korea is the same as common sense in S. Korea? I don't |
32 |
> think so at all.). So, 'common sense' for Gentoo still cannot be all |
33 |
> that useful a method of interpretation, because Gentoo most certainly |
34 |
> is multi-cultural. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions |
37 |
> > made on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non |
38 |
> > developers making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above |
39 |
> > with that liability in mind. |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> It's not that bad. as long as council meets every two weeks, any |
42 |
> decision can be undone within 2 weeks (and council can always hold a |
43 |
> special session. Although under your 'what if' scenario, we have a |
44 |
> council which does not take its responsibilities very seriously.) |
45 |
> > Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> I'm sure we all have different views of the world. But I generally |
48 |
> agree with what you have written here, I think. |
49 |
|
50 |
You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case |
51 |
exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the |
52 |
council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a |
53 |
decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go |
54 |
there. |
55 |
|
56 |
I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council |
57 |
does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real |
58 |
life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed |
59 |
proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of |
60 |
council members who may be proxied at any single meeting. |
61 |
|
62 |
As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether. |
63 |
We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council |
64 |
members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that |
65 |
does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the |
66 |
council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that |
67 |
decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers. |
68 |
|
69 |
- -- |
70 |
Regards, |
71 |
|
72 |
Roy Bamford |
73 |
(NeddySeagoon) a member of |
74 |
gentoo-ops |
75 |
forum-mods |
76 |
treecleaners |
77 |
trustees |
78 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
79 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) |
80 |
|
81 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkpH9GAACgkQTE4/y7nJvavFPwCguehKyVF6Ep294VWSHB14Dlq/ |
82 |
mKIAmwWe9bHlEHwYayljnsisUW8p3VsK |
83 |
=Npgw |
84 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |