List Archive: gentoo-project
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 01-08-2011 23:24:56 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> As I've expressed already a few times, I strongly disagree with the
> Council being able to change the rules that govern it. In my view, this
> topic belongs to a reform of GLEP39.
> Also, as documented on the last meeting's summary, the current
> council voted on not being able to update GLEP39:
> Donnie asked for a clarification by the council members on whether they
> think a global dev vote is required to update GLEP39 or not. The
> council voted 5 yes and 1 no that the council can't change GLEP39 as it
> requires a full developer vote.
>  -
Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain change
to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the
supporting material for the change.
> > Please discuss how to implement a change like this. Starting point
> > would be to see what changes would be necessary to GLEP39. Also,
> > whether the term would have to become 2 year, or the votings be twice
> > a year. All contributions, objections or alternative ideas welcome.
> - From my experience in the council, I think 2 year terms are too long.
> Having overlapping terms might work or not, I'd say it depends on who is
> elected to the council - although they can help in the transition.
> One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5 council
> members. I think the current number is a good balance between a cohesive
> body and a representative body and that a council with only 5 members is
> getting too thin.
I think 7 is ok as well. Probably a good document on how things work,
and what is expected from council members would get new members started
quickly without too much problems as well.
Gentoo on a different level