Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
To: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:42:17
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22 by Donnie Berkholz
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 18:23 Thu 22 Jan , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>> Discuss on-list before meeting >>> --------------------------------------- >>> - Council meta stuff (-council) >>> - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? >>> - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? >> I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at >> least 5 council members *if* developers want to change the size. > > What is your reasoning for this?
Until we decide to change the council/TLP structure (more on that later), allowing the council to become one individual is not an option - imho.
>> I dislike the idea of stretched 2-year terms, instead I prefer having >> 1-year staggered terms (voting every 6 months and replace 3 or 4 >> council members). This would allow to put open council slots into the >> next election, we wouldn't need to hold extra elections for open slots >> then. > > As I mentioned on the -council voting thread, I am concerned about a > constant influx of new members every 6 months making it very difficult > to make any progress. Do you think that won't be a problem? If so, what > makes you think that? > >> Anyways, this is something we can discuss - but as a change to the >> voting procedure most likely does change or extend what's written down >> in GLEP 39 I'd like to see a election on those changes. > > I'm assuming you mean a vote by all Gentoo devs, since an election > generally involves voting for a person rather than a policy.
We need to create a way to hold referendums - one of the goals of a gentoo elections project that I keep delaying sending an email to kick-start.
> Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 in > the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion > publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then > take all this input into consideration and vote upon it.
This is something that was touched about when the election for the current council was decided as a consequence of GLEP 39, but that wasn't discussed as thoroughly as it should have been. My opinion is that any rule/decree/... that institutes our "meta-structure", including the "governing body" (council for now), should require a new referendum to amend and must not allow the governing body to "touch it". This rule/decree/... should institute the bare minimum rules (a minimum number of meetings per year, obligation to hold public meetings and take input from the dev community, but not to follow it, etc), but should leave specific organization details for the council members. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - iEYEARECAAYFAkl5uyMACgkQcAWygvVEyALqTQCghRviD8vlfUgjI6FnNBZnf8h2 GcUAoIzZmKqWMIUETseHLOT9cBhdWQDx =oLl1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----