-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 12:27 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 14-08-2011 12:12:32 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Quite a few of you know that Council acts as a court in case a
>> developer has unresolved disputes with Devrel or when he is not
>> happy with a Devrel's decision. The problem is that having the same
>> people in the Council and in Devrel makes no sense since the same
>> people will vote twice on that matter. A developer who wants to
>> appeal to Council, seeks a review of his case and a fresh voting
>> from new people. However, having devrel members, which are already
>> biased based on the previous decision, makes the "Council's court
>> role" a moot role :)
> 
> In a way, yes you're right.  However, escalations to Council should
> be rare.  Council members were elected by dev community, so
> apparently people didn't bother about them being to do so. I think it
> would be elegant when DevRel members in the Council would abstain
> from a vote, but if that makes a small remaining group of voters...

Yes it is very rare but still there is a possibility to happen, and in
this case, it makes no sense having the same people vote twice on the
same issue.
> 
> Perhaps it would be better when DevRel members in the Council would
> be replaced by (their) proxies for such vote?
In my mind, a proxy= a guy who thinks the same way I do, so it makes no
difference whether the Council member or the proxy votes.

Or should random people
> picked from the dev community and asked if they want to cast a vote?
This is a bit risky, people may be biased ( I really like this dev || I
really hate this dude ) and again the voting may not be just.

> 
> Perhaps the Council should be released from this task at all, and 
> instead should be given the job to assemble a jury out of the dev 
> community (with non-involvement in DevRel) that is to examine the
> case, and make a final verdict that the Council will accept/act
> upon.
> 
Same problem as before. You need to make sure that the jury will not be
biased. This introduces another layer of bureaucracy. We have enough of
them already

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=+poO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----