On 04/17/2010 07:50 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> Do we want to make changes to the role of the council?
>
Note - I mention Trustees a few times - this policy would of course not
govern the trustees. I mention them only to draw contrasts and better
define the role of the council, which this does define.
I'm not sure this is actually a change, but I think that many would
consider this a change, so perhaps it should be made explicit:
There is one Gentoo. The Council heads it up. There is one Gentoo
Foundation. The trustees head it up. Full stop.
All other positions of leadership/etc exist to facilitate day to day
work. All are subordinate to one of these two bodies. The council may
be voting enact or revoke policy on behalf of any project/etc, and may
make administrative decisions regarding project leads/etc.
Of course, the council is encouraged to not do so unless absolutely
necessary.
The council ultimately represents all Gentoo devs, and so in the event
of any kind of conflict they ultimately hold the final vote, except in
matters concerning the foundation. There the trustees hold a similar role.
Also - neither the trustees nor the council as a whole are required to
recuse themselves from any decision due to a perceived conflict of
interest, except where contrary to law. Individual members of these
bodies can of course do so at their own discretion. If, for example,
the council wants to settle a devrel matter directly, it can be judge,
jury, court of appeals, and executioner. Again, this should obviously
not be the norm.
I know that lots of people seem to think that somehow it isn't good for
the council to have too much power, but I think that ultimately somebody
needs to be in charge. I'd rather it be the council (elected by all)
than some project head or whatever. And I definitely don't like all the
time wasted when everybody second guesses whether anybody is actually
allowed to do something. The norm of course should be for the council
to be the court of appeals and not a day-to-day admin body.
Rich
|
