On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 23:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 2009.06.28 23:14, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100
> > Roy Bamford <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by
> > > entirely by non gentoo developer proxies?
> > > Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel
> > > bound
> > > by decisions that such a meeting reached?
> > >
> > Currently, yes.
> > > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so
> > it
> > > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think.
> > >
> > It's worse than that. I think 'common sense' is subjective and thus
> > not a useful method of interpretation. Even if one disagrees with
> > that
> > statement, 'common sense' is certainly cultural (do you suppose
> > common
> > sense in N. Korea is the same as common sense in S. Korea? I don't
> > think so at all.). So, 'common sense' for Gentoo still cannot be all
> > that useful a method of interpretation, because Gentoo most certainly
> > is multi-cultural.
> > > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions
> > > made on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non
> > > developers making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above
> > > with that liability in mind.
> > >
> > It's not that bad. as long as council meets every two weeks, any
> > decision can be undone within 2 weeks (and council can always hold a
> > special session. Although under your 'what if' scenario, we have a
> > council which does not take its responsibilities very seriously.)
> > > Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world
> > >
> > I'm sure we all have different views of the world. But I generally
> > agree with what you have written here, I think.
> You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case
> exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the
> council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a
> decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go
I meant that the council can reverse itself. I did not intend to imply
any trustee action --- I intended to imply that council should be able
to see when they had made an error of judgment.
> I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council
> does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real
> life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed
> proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of
> council members who may be proxied at any single meeting.
Fair enough. But I don't think such a meeting should ever happen.
Surely, council can reschedule a meeting if they see this coming up. :)
> As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether.
> We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council
> members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that
> does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the
> council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that
> decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers.
> - --
> Roy Bamford
> (NeddySeagoon) a member of
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)