| 1 |
On 12:30 Fri 05 Aug , Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80% of |
| 4 |
> > developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very |
| 5 |
> > highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally |
| 6 |
> > changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it |
| 7 |
> > cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo |
| 8 |
> > wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them |
| 9 |
> > make the choice. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it. Why |
| 12 |
> do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst |
| 13 |
> council members and devs in general? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But I'm not saying that. Instead, what if (this is a hypothetical, not |
| 16 |
saying it's reality) there's just a few council members whom the devs in |
| 17 |
general support? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Let's assume the following scenario: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees with |
| 22 |
the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they |
| 23 |
must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening |
| 24 |
nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from |
| 25 |
proposing any changes to GLEP 39. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In other words, it sounds like what you're saying is that anyone could |
| 28 |
propose changes to GLEP 39 that go to a full developer vote. Unless |
| 29 |
you're on the council, in which case there's an automatic veto |
| 30 |
opportunity given to them first. That second bit is the part that |
| 31 |
doesn't make any sense to me. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Thanks, |
| 35 |
Donnie |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 38 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
| 39 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 40 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
Archives