1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
5 |
> On 18:23 Thu 22 Jan , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: |
6 |
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
7 |
>>> Discuss on-list before meeting |
8 |
>>> --------------------------------------- |
9 |
>>> - Council meta stuff (-council) |
10 |
>>> - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? |
11 |
>>> - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? |
12 |
>> I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at |
13 |
>> least 5 council members *if* developers want to change the size. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> What is your reasoning for this? |
16 |
|
17 |
Until we decide to change the council/TLP structure (more on that |
18 |
later), allowing the council to become one individual is not an option - |
19 |
imho. |
20 |
|
21 |
>> I dislike the idea of stretched 2-year terms, instead I prefer having |
22 |
>> 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4 |
23 |
>> council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the |
24 |
>> next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots |
25 |
>> then. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a |
28 |
> constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult |
29 |
> to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what |
30 |
> makes you think that? |
31 |
> |
32 |
>> Anyways, this is something we can discuss - but as a change to the |
33 |
>> voting procedure most likely does change or extend what's written down |
34 |
>> in GLEP 39 I'd like to see a election on those changes. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> I'm assuming you mean a vote by all Gentoo devs, since an election |
37 |
> generally involves voting for a person rather than a policy. |
38 |
|
39 |
We need to create a way to hold referendums - one of the goals of a |
40 |
gentoo elections project that I keep delaying sending an email to |
41 |
kick-start. |
42 |
|
43 |
> Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in |
44 |
> the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion |
45 |
> publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then |
46 |
> take all this input into consideration and vote upon it. |
47 |
|
48 |
This is something that was touched about when the election for the |
49 |
current council was decided as a consequence of GLEP 39, but that wasn't |
50 |
discussed as thoroughly as it should have been. |
51 |
My opinion is that any rule/decree/... that institutes our |
52 |
"meta-structure", including the "governing body" (council for now), |
53 |
should require a new referendum to amend and must not allow the |
54 |
governing body to "touch it". This rule/decree/... should institute the |
55 |
bare minimum rules (a minimum number of meetings per year, obligation to |
56 |
hold public meetings and take input from the dev community, but not to |
57 |
follow it, etc), but should leave specific organization details for the |
58 |
council members. |
59 |
|
60 |
- -- |
61 |
Regards, |
62 |
|
63 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
64 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE |
65 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
66 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
67 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
68 |
|
69 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkl5uyMACgkQcAWygvVEyALqTQCghRviD8vlfUgjI6FnNBZnf8h2 |
70 |
GcUAoIzZmKqWMIUETseHLOT9cBhdWQDx |
71 |
=oLl1 |
72 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |