On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Roy Bamford <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In short, --Routine_Appointments, ++Monitoring ++AuthortyToAct
Not a bad idea. In fact, I'd probably extend this to most areas of
Gentoo as well. Some of these threads get a bit Kefka-ish with all
the questions raised about whether the Council has the right to do
this or that. These kinds of attitudes amount to "if you don't like
it, tough - you have no recourse." If Gentoo has a problem we should
fix it - not argue over whether anybody is allowed to fix it.
I'm not a fan either of the council (or trustees) micro-managing
things, or not having the ability to step in when things get out of
hand. These are elected bodies, and generally have not shown a
tendency to heavy-handedness in any case.
Something Donnie campaigned on also rings true to my ears - we don't
need long-standing rules to deal with one-time problems. If a team is
out of control, the council should simply step in and fix it, and then
let it run its course. The council should be viewed as having
authority over the entire developer space, but not as something with
day-to-day involvement in everything that goes on.
Look at how any business runs. When you have a spat with your boss
the owner of the company probably doesn't get called in to sort it out
- your boss and his boss just deal with it. However, if the owner of
the company does happen to walk in and set things straight, you won't
find everybody arguing with him about it. We, as the community, are
the owners of Gentoo, and we can make of it what we will. However,
having a half-dozen elected representatives to deal with serious
issues rather than putting everything to referendum just makes sense.
That really applies to both the council and the trustees.
So, if there is a problem to be fixed, I say go fix it. If there
isn't a problem, we don't necessarily need to look to create one...