>>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 08:58 Fri 05 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> Let me try to put it different:
>> The assumption that the council has to vote for GLEP39, perhaps is
>> wrong. Would it make more sense when the council would suggest the
>> changes for GLEP39 and have the dev community vote on acceptance?
>> Beforehand, the council then -- internally -- has to vote if they
>> agree on the changes being put forward to the dev community.
>> I think there should be a majority vote among the council members
>> before such proposal is sent out for a dev vote.
> I still don't like it. I think that anyone should be able to submit
> things to a developer-wide vote if desired, regardless of whether a
> council majority supports it. I suppose maybe I would be OK with
> having at least one council "sponsor" for the vote, but I hate the
> idea of the council having a pre-vote veto on any idea they don't
> like that changes how they operate.
I think there are two alternative scenarios here:
1. If the council itself puts forward the idea of restructuring its
mode of operation, then of course there should be a council vote
before it is passed on to the dev community. I agree with Fabian
2. On the other hand, if such an idea is driven by the dev community,
then the council shouldn't discuss it at all (not as council, of
course individual council members can participate in the
> Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80%
> of developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very
> highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally
> changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it
> cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo
> wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them
> make the choice.
I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it.
Why do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst
council members and devs in general?