| 1 |
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> A GLEP is a GLEP. A GLEP that obsoletes GLEP 39 can be proposed by |
| 3 |
> anyone at any time. When/if it reaches council, they can determine |
| 4 |
> that it needs a dev wide vote. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> There is no need to do anything in a hurry. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Agreed. I'm not even sure there is anything wrong with GLEP 39 to |
| 9 |
begin with, but if there is we need to form a loose consensus on it |
| 10 |
before we put it up to a vote. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
My personal sense is that our existing formal policies are fine. |
| 13 |
Formal council votes should be used as the final basis of decision for |
| 14 |
large issues or ones that aren't resolved in other ways. Devrel with |
| 15 |
their fairly ponderous processes are a good way of handling serious |
| 16 |
long-term issues with individual devs. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think where our gaps lie are with moderation on minor issues that |
| 19 |
don't rise to the level of devrel. I think that informal council |
| 20 |
leadership could probably help out there - when there is a general |
| 21 |
consensus resisted by a few council members could just point this out |
| 22 |
on the list, and generally use their influence to get everybody in |
| 23 |
line. If that isn't sufficient there can always be a formal vote. I |
| 24 |
think much of the pain on some of the long threads isn't that we fail |
| 25 |
to form a consensus, but rather that no consensus will ever be 100% |
| 26 |
and nobody is finalizing decisions so everybody keeps arguing until |
| 27 |
Larry comes home. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If we need policy around dealing with minor behavior issues we already |
| 30 |
have it - the currently-unenforced code of conduct already defines a |
| 31 |
mechanism for dealing with infractions. I'm not really sure what is |
| 32 |
wrong with the current policy beyond the fact that it was never really |
| 33 |
given an opportunity to succeed or fail. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I'm not sure what it is that we hope to accomplish by changing the |
| 36 |
meta-structure. There was chatting on IRC about a benevolent |
| 37 |
dictator, but I don't really see many with the time to really engage |
| 38 |
at a Council level of involvement let alone with that which would be |
| 39 |
required to actually have a dictatorial role (hint, you can't just |
| 40 |
pass down edicts and expect people not to quit - if you want anybody |
| 41 |
to follow them you need to spend lots of time interacting with the |
| 42 |
volunteers you intend to rule). |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I think many of our problems also stem from the challenges of |
| 45 |
online-only interaction - it is very depersonalizing. The only way to |
| 46 |
really overcome that is to have a lot more contact between leaders and |
| 47 |
developers. The council can't run things only from the benefit of |
| 48 |
office - they really need to have substantial interaction with the |
| 49 |
community to be effective. Their job isn't just to vote - it is also |
| 50 |
to persuade. Running an organization of this size in spare time is a |
| 51 |
major challenge. For this reason as developers we also all have a |
| 52 |
responsibility to Gentoo to try to make their lives easier... |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Rich |
Archives