1 |
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Ferris McCormick<fmccor@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> So it is conceivable that if council were to replace GLEP39, they would |
3 |
> be working against the explicit wishes of the community. |
4 |
|
5 |
The council is elected by the developer community to serve the |
6 |
community's best interest. The developers chose the members they |
7 |
wanted and could reject those they did not want. The way I understand |
8 |
that is that all those who finished above the _reopen_nominations |
9 |
level are to be considered trusted by a majority of the community. |
10 |
Thus, your assumption that the council could be working against the |
11 |
wishes of the community is equivalent to not trusting them, and in my |
12 |
opinion should not be thrown into the equation. |
13 |
|
14 |
> that is really a |
15 |
> question for Grant (g2boojum) and Ciaran (ciaranm). That would be |
16 |
> primarily Grant, I think, because I asked ciaranm something about |
17 |
> GLEP39 once, and as I recall, he told me that Grant was the primary |
18 |
> author. |
19 |
|
20 |
With all due respect to both of them, what they had in mind 4 years |
21 |
ago matters much less than what we want to do for Gentoo in the |
22 |
future. What they had in mind was influenced by the then situation and |
23 |
a lot of things have changed. Grant and Ciaran are welcome to |
24 |
participate to this discussion but I would prefer if you all gave your |
25 |
own opinion on the matter, not theirs. |
26 |
|
27 |
Anyway, as promised here's mine. |
28 |
|
29 |
1- Yes, we can modify GLEP39. Gentoo is our project and we can make it |
30 |
what we want. The only unknown is who and how. |
31 |
|
32 |
2- GLEP39 was initially voted by all developers and is significant |
33 |
enough that changes to it shouldn't be treated as lightly as any other |
34 |
council decision. |
35 |
|
36 |
3- The council members should be trusted by default and their smaller |
37 |
number (compared to the whole developer community) enables a smoother |
38 |
and faster decision process. |
39 |
|
40 |
4- There is no way we will agree on how significant every change will |
41 |
be, so we have to consider them all the same. |
42 |
|
43 |
So what I would propose is that a unanimous decision from all 7 |
44 |
council members on each change warrants them to amend GLEP39. My |
45 |
reasoning is that if all council members agree then it very likely |
46 |
represents the opinion of the majority of developers who elected them, |
47 |
and there's no point to resorting to an all-devs vote. In the case |
48 |
where one or more member(s) would disagree then we have the natural |
49 |
fallback to the process used for any other council decision: somebody |
50 |
proposes that all developers vote on a change to GLEP39, and, after |
51 |
discussion, if a majority of council members agree (either in a live |
52 |
meeting or on the list) then we start the voting process. |
53 |
|
54 |
This way we can maintain the smooth process for changes which seem |
55 |
obvious enough, and we involve the whole developer community for less |
56 |
obvious or more important decisions. And we don't have to decide in |
57 |
advance how major or obvious a change is, the fact that we reach a |
58 |
unanimous decision or not will speak for itself. |
59 |
|
60 |
Denis. |