| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 01-08-2011 18:47, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 5 |
> After the new council was setup, a "introductionary" meeting was held |
| 6 |
> to get the new council members going a bit. Since this meeting |
| 7 |
> replaced an ordinary meeting, it is considered a waste of time by |
| 8 |
> some [1]. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Roy Bamford suggested to change the scheme to "Two year terms and |
| 11 |
> elections every year for half the seats." |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This requires an update to GLEP39 [2] on all points that reference |
| 14 |
> the one year period of the council. It requires addition of the two |
| 15 |
> overlapping terms, and dealing with the "less than 50% attendance" |
| 16 |
> point. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Voting for this point makes little to no sense for as long as the |
| 19 |
> implications to GLEP39 and possibly other organisational issues |
| 20 |
> aren't clear. Hence, at this stage, brief discussion by the council |
| 21 |
> in the next meeting can only make it clear if the current council has |
| 22 |
> the intention to supports a change like this or not. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As I've expressed already a few times, I strongly disagree with the |
| 25 |
Council being able to change the rules that govern it. In my view, this |
| 26 |
topic belongs to a reform of GLEP39. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Also, as documented on the last meeting's summary[1], the current |
| 29 |
council voted on not being able to update GLEP39: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Donnie asked for a clarification by the council members on whether they |
| 32 |
think a global dev vote is required to update GLEP39 or not. The |
| 33 |
council voted 5 yes and 1 no that the council can't change GLEP39 as it |
| 34 |
requires a full developer vote. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[1] - |
| 37 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110715-summary.txt |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> Please discuss how to implement a change like this. Starting point |
| 40 |
> would be to see what changes would be necessary to GLEP39. Also, |
| 41 |
> whether the term would have to become 2 year, or the votings be twice |
| 42 |
> a year. All contributions, objections or alternative ideas welcome. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
- From my experience in the council, I think 2 year terms are too long. |
| 45 |
Having overlapping terms might work or not, I'd say it depends on who is |
| 46 |
elected to the council - although they can help in the transition. |
| 47 |
One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5 council |
| 48 |
members. I think the current number is a good balance between a cohesive |
| 49 |
body and a representative body and that a council with only 5 members is |
| 50 |
getting too thin. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> [1] |
| 53 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
- -- |
| 59 |
Regards, |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 62 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng |
| 63 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 64 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 65 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJONzXIAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPpIcP/jo5G+5yBTf8CzVGpaa8k8+D |
| 68 |
Oa+PGIPcgmPny6UoumhiEgfiTqYcUDX9nD1RV6E6Lq0a+Nn6Rz0CRey7qeux7djf |
| 69 |
oUoNUehKTsRrpTSFIsTpSwPpnHN/yPcYUKiDg6vqXM5jWKQ5Et5NllvSk0naawiM |
| 70 |
lbF+IAr/+iVulyZ0eJv+WGP621baUJ+UuiBshbG97d8kv19i2Q7bAg/LMTF50DT9 |
| 71 |
WQ+a6GhV9K8Q+NMUf5UflSFUlf70JuXY4+ZxVZvrA3KOHoBDrV6WoY3Vf9GbWRLs |
| 72 |
ZbzoabQgJVzEZgwzDF4mQUI39NmSn/LjRe7nO/a1i+10yb8KOtnI/vfiS9MrNbQH |
| 73 |
MYNfJaKko5dqojOTusmNmwEjs2GX7BL/RP/mvcQ9b1CSLAK+4iwgPtOVLrEq3Fkd |
| 74 |
7dhyJ2pk0aslOZrhtZ+8//B80pEIxwEDMPw25bx/9xRFoMglXJHvQD/H888Dej8R |
| 75 |
PIiJ0brHaTm5MzceER83o1KGWnptkfU4JGKNq2oX07jBwqgTALqSRlABfWpMjOP1 |
| 76 |
PNiC9zM3uhGZh+lqtdQBXeL/tWTxlPgln4H/XiU20pb/DRx8tKZYjwO3hWewDh3n |
| 77 |
0MpIH9ceknRgkHjHICsjdhgdcelJMtY0AqpCPsutvhUwEvQbPZiPkx7u4MCAf2Uy |
| 78 |
z0xpgpf99/ia8nxiCHzp |
| 79 |
=B1jQ |
| 80 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives