Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] (fwd)

[Ferris McCormick]

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 14:41 +0000, Richard Freeman wrote:


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:39:02 -0400
> From: Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
> To: Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o>
> Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council
>      meeting summary for 8 May 2008]
>
> Alistair Bush wrote:
> >  It really isn't the Councils decision and the only thing they can do to get
> >  themselves out of this situation is to hold an election. Firstly, even tho
> >  this is absolutely minor , GLEP 39 has been "breached" and it details what
> >  the solution is for that breach.  Therefore that solution, a new council via
> >  an election, _must_ be performed.
> >
>
> Uh - the word "must" is a bit strong.  Why "must" an election be performed?
> GLEP 39 is a document several years old, that probably pre-dates half of the
> devs here, and most likely most of the ones that were around weren't really
> envisioning that it be used in this way today.
>

I can't find the original choices archived on any of my systems, but as
best as I recall, we knew what we were voting for and intended it to be
used exactly as written.  Now, the date on GLEP 39 (metastructure
proposal) is September, 2005.  What I do have archived is the slate of
candidates for the first Council elected under this structure.  It is
dated 2005-08-01.  So there should really be no question but that the
policy predates the GLEP and thus the GLEP just reflects the policy
chosen by the developer base.

Policy says we must hold an election for a new Council within one month
of the violation.  No matter how you wish to read it or argue it, this
leaves us about 28 days and counting.

(GLEP 39 is a bit less that 3 years old.  I suppose that qualifies as
"several", but it's hardly ancient.)

........... SNIP .............
>
> The council was elected because they already had the respect of most gentoo
> devs.  That isn't going to change simply because a few people missed a meeting.

Probably not.  But suppose we compound this and figure out a way to get
around our written policy.  What of respect then, Hmm?  And by the way,
this early election does reset the clock, so whoever gets elected will
have a 12 month term starting presumably on or before 15 June.

>
................. SNIP ..................
>
> >
> >  In fact, whose duty is it too call the election? Decide when any election is
> >  to take place?
>

Council, I think, to implement the policy governing Council.  It's like
any other Council election, just happening in May instead of
August/September, and compressed from 2 months into 1.

> Hmm - I suspect that would again be the council - since everybody already looks
> to them for leadership.  Why don't we see what their perspective is?  If you
> feel strongly about new elections try contacting one of them directly and
> talking about it.  Most council members have gotten where they are because
> folks think they have a good head on their shoulders - they're likely to listen
> to you.  If they hear lots of people calling for a new election I suspect that
> they'd go ahead and hold one.  I think that those who are concerned about this
> issue would get further in this way than by kicking up a storm on a mailing
> list (not that open discussion is a bad thing).  Don't be surprised if they
> don't take action on the basis of one communication, but if they hear from lots
> of devs they'd probably take it seriously.

Uh, the new election requirement is from existing policy.  It's not
really a popularity contest of some sort.  And it's not based on what
Council members want to do.  If that were the case, there would be no
point in having policies at all, would there?  And as for contacting
them directly, I thought that's what we were doing by discussing the
matter in this thread.

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)