1 |
Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> posted 4A47F8E3.8070703@×××××.com, excerpted |
3 |
> below, on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:12:35 -0500: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask. Why is that EVERYONE on the |
7 |
>> council must be there or have someone there to represent them? Would |
8 |
>> Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I believe the fear is in ultimately having a very small group of people |
12 |
> (say 1-3) vote in something agreed among themselves, that the rest of the |
13 |
> community doesn't agree with. Gentoo devs tend to be a rather |
14 |
> independent lot, and they don't want that risk. That's the reason the |
15 |
> council is seven members instead of say, five or three, as well. With a |
16 |
> three person council it's really easy to get just two acting in cahoots, |
17 |
> and with five, getting a third person isn't that much harder. A seven |
18 |
> member council means in ordered for something to pass, at least four |
19 |
> members must agree, and there's a lot of developers for whom that's |
20 |
> simply the minimum number they can trust to make a reasonable decision. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> >From that viewpoint, if anyone's absent without proxy, it lowers the |
23 |
> "safe" level dramatically, because it's just too easy to persuade one or |
24 |
> two other folks to vote with you, even if they don't share your ulterior |
25 |
> motive. So the idea is to keep the number of votes to seven, so the |
26 |
> number necessary for a majority is always a reasonably safe four. |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
That makes sense so what about this theory? A vote can only happen if a |
30 |
certain number, say five or six, is in attendance. That would end up |
31 |
with there being a majority vote but by more than 3 people. What you |
32 |
say is very true. I read about a city council that met and voted with |
33 |
all the opposing side not being told it was going to happen at all. |
34 |
Needless to say, they got their way. We all know how hard it is to take |
35 |
something back once it is done. |
36 |
|
37 |
> |
38 |
>> I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a |
39 |
>> developer. If it is not that way now, it should be changed. I been |
40 |
>> using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy. I |
41 |
>> would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote. |
42 |
>> |
43 |
> |
44 |
> I agree. If I read GLEP 39 correctly, however, the reason it wasn't |
45 |
> required that all council members be devs is because they'd be council |
46 |
> members by virtue of being voted in by devs (being a dev is a requirement |
47 |
> to vote). Thus, if a majority of voting devs voted in a Gentoo-non-dev, |
48 |
> presumably they'd be expressing explicit trust in that non-dev to do the |
49 |
> right thing. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Of course, the same doesn't apply to proxies, who are single-person |
52 |
> designated by the to-be-absent council member. Thus, the safety margin |
53 |
> doesn't exist there, they were NOT approved by the voting devs as a |
54 |
> whole, or even the council as a whole, and it's certainly a reasonable |
55 |
> argument that because of that, they should at least be devs. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> However, see my recent post proposing designated proxies, taking the job |
58 |
> for the full council term of a year. They could either be voted in as |
59 |
> running mates along with the (voting) council, or designated and approved |
60 |
> as the first order of business of the new council. (Since voting is |
61 |
> already underway for the new council, it'd have to be designated and |
62 |
> approved, this year, with the running mate idea perhaps next year if |
63 |
> thought good.) |
64 |
> |
65 |
> That'd eliminate both the unprepared proxy still trying to get up to |
66 |
> speed on what he's supposed to be voting on, as they'd presumably be as |
67 |
> prepared as would the regular voting council member, AND the problem of |
68 |
> non-dev as proxy, since they'd at minimum have been approved by the |
69 |
> council as a whole, if not voted in, in the same council vote as the |
70 |
> (voting) council itself. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> |
73 |
|
74 |
I see the point you are making. It seems to me that either proxies need |
75 |
to end or they need to be "running mates" as you put it. Then they |
76 |
would have to be devs to be "voted" in as proxies which would solve the |
77 |
whole issue. |
78 |
|
79 |
BTW, I'm sort of a conspiracy theorist. We have a family lawyer that |
80 |
does our legal stuff and he has learned the hard way to look at every |
81 |
single angle that is even remotely possible. I got that trait from my |
82 |
Mom. It's also what I hate about our government here. They pass laws |
83 |
and have not freaking idea what it says and it is so ambiguous that you |
84 |
can read into it whatever you like. Makes it hard on the Judges and the |
85 |
people since we never know what way the Judges will rule. It's a crap |
86 |
shoot basically. |
87 |
|
88 |
Dale |
89 |
|
90 |
:-) :-) |