Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> The problem with this concept is that the Council and the Trustees
> represent different teams and the plan is to have a greater division
> between them in the future. It can also promote tensions that could
> escalate into a "war" between them with one trying to dismantle the other.
> The current policies already state that the council can be "voted out",
> although there are no rules on how to do it, and the proposed bylaws,
> including their current revision, already allow for a vote of the
> foundation members to remove the existing trustees.
> If we have clear policies that either body fails to follow, I think
> Richard's proposal for the referendum is a better solution to enforce
> those policies.
Well this policy is in practice within many countries around the world.
And within a Constitutional monarchy I know of only one example of
something like that ever happening. It is called the Australian
Constitutional Crisis. It is also one of the reasons I added the
minimum period rule, so that in any situation one body could not remove
another continuously. If there is a situation where a "war" breaks out
it will be the development community who decides which group is right.
We might be a bunch of idiots, but I think we have the intelligence to
not get into a cyclical situation where every month we alternate between
having a council or foundation election.
On the whole I don't really have a problem with Richards proposal in
general, but I disagree with somethings in particular.
Firstly I always get the impression that people think the Foundation is
just a holding company for the assets of gentoo. I think it owns Gentoo
and _everything_ that Gentoo does (or is) is of interest to, and the
responsibility of, the Foundation. I note that there have been ppl
complaining about the "closed" decision making of the present Council,
well the Foundation Charter states "Every aspect of Gentoo is and
remains open. Gentoo does not benefit from hiding any of its development
processes (whether it is source code or documentation, decisions or
discussions, coordination or management).". The Foundation has a vested
interest in how the Council performs its function. Why? Because the
council influences whether the foundation meets its Charter. If the
Council is closed, gentoo is closed and the foundation fails to meet one
of its 4 pillars.
Secondly, I despise situations when groups get to decide there own fate.
If you have to submit a petition you really shouldn't be submitting it
to the organisation/group your submitting it against. Who says the
council doesn't need to just ignore it? What would you do if they did
ignore it? it's their responsibility to submit it too mailing lists and
call a vote. if anyone else does it, then it couldn't be considered
Thirdly, I believe my suggestion can be written more consistently with
less room for interpretation, etc, etc.
When it comes down to it we really are discussing what will hopefully be
the least used rules of the entire distro.
I will attempt to merge Richards idea's with my own.
1) The Foundation call's for Council elections, Council call's for
2) At any time during a Councils term the Council can ask the
Foundation to call elections for Council, at which time the Foundation
_must_ do so. (and vice versa for Foundation)
3) Foundation can dismiss Council and call elections. (majority or
4) Council can dismiss "Foundation" (or more correctly all its members)
and call elections. ( absolute vote only? )
5) A Council or Foundation can't be dismissed within the first 2 Months
of being elected.
6) The Foundation automatically delegates Development responsibility to
7) The Council may appoint Positions and delegate responsibilities. 
8) The Council is the arm of Gentoo that defines the direction of Gentoo
from a development perspective as long as it meets the goals of the
Foundation ( Otherwise the Foundation will dismiss them, or possibly
overturn there decisions? )..
9) The Council must meet monthly ( with current attendance rules ).
Rules surrounding extra meetings are at the Councils discretion.
10) Any developer may follow the following procedure to hold a
referendum on any issue that will be binding on Gentoo (but not the
a) Create a petition containing a clear resolution with voting options
(which must include an option to abstain and an option to decline the
b) Collect gpg signatures from developers/staff. The requisite number
of signatures is xx% of the number devs who made commits in the last 30
days. Note that the count of devs making commits is used ONLY to
determine the number of sigs needed - any devs/staff can provide sigs
regardless of their role or level of activity as long as they haven't
c) Submit petition to Foundation. The council will post the petition
on -dev-announce (or -core if the petition so indicates) and allow two
weeks for debate and two weeks for voting.
 This means that the Council could appoint a leader and delegate all
responsibility to them, it could also be used to imply that the Council
appoints the leaders of each Project by accepting automatically the vote
of that projects members. Therefore a leader of a project would have
been delegated responsibility for the project from the Council.
Hopefully this will give ppl something to think about at least.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list