| 1 |
On 14.08.2011 17:11, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/14/2011 03:05 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 14.08.2011 16:42, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>>> So lets try with an example: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> A dev wants to join the Sunrise project and i as the lead say no |
| 8 |
>>>> to him. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> This means, both 1 and 2 are already done, 3 does not seem |
| 11 |
>>>> reasonable to me, since it looks unlikely to me, that DevRel |
| 12 |
>>>> could/should force a team to accept a new member, which would end |
| 13 |
>>>> with the last point. And if both sides keep their point, council |
| 14 |
>>>> could either force his addition, which will usually mean, that |
| 15 |
>>>> the team lead leaves or accept the decision of the team lead. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> I don't think Council is eligible to force this. The council is |
| 19 |
>>> not supposed to interfere with how teams operate. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> The precedent is that Council can rule whatever it wants besides |
| 23 |
>> changing GLEP 39. Of course in a volunteer project some might never |
| 24 |
>> get executed. Changing eligibility rules for the council requires a |
| 25 |
>> change to GLEP 39 so it's not something we can vote on in the next |
| 26 |
>> meeting. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>> Regards, Petteri |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Fair enough. I was pretty sure that the Council was not supposed to |
| 32 |
> instruct projects how to operate. But anyway, this is irrelevant to the |
| 33 |
> initial discussion. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I think Tommy presented a valid question but you are just missing the |
| 37 |
point. DevRel is just a body that is more likely to do decisions that |
| 38 |
are doing to be appealed to the council. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Regards, |
| 41 |
Petteri |
Archives