1 |
On 5/21/08, Chrissy Fullam <musikc@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> > People keep asking us for action or a decision one way or the other, and |
3 |
> > we can't seem to get enough of us saying the same thing at the same time |
4 |
> > to do anything. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > To get some movement here, I'd like to get a concrete response from the |
7 |
> > council in this thread for how we should proceed. Here's some options |
8 |
> > that have been mentioned: |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > 1) Have an election now; |
11 |
|
12 |
I would prefer this option. |
13 |
|
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > 2) Hold a 1-week vote asking all devs whether we should have elections; |
16 |
|
17 |
I'm with Neddy that this is probably a waste of time in terms of |
18 |
election dates (now or 6 weeks from now). Regardless of the outcome |
19 |
of the vote we will be holding elections 'soon'; this may actually |
20 |
make things more confusing. |
21 |
|
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > 3) Say that last week's nonmeeting didn't count for any of these |
24 |
> > reasons: it was (a) poorly announced, (b) not voted on by a council |
25 |
> > majority or (c) not a regularly scheduled meeting; or |
26 |
|
27 |
I think a and c are a copout (as presumbly Donnie is aware). Lack of |
28 |
planning on the council's part is not an excuse. It is crappy to be |
29 |
sure and I sympathize with your position and so forth... ;) |
30 |
|
31 |
b is an interesting tact. How many council members does it take to |
32 |
screw in a ligh...er...make a meeting. Personally I think enough |
33 |
people showed up expecting a meeting that you probably won't do well |
34 |
to persue this path either; however it seems easier to use as a |
35 |
defense. |
36 |
|
37 |
'Due to our poor planning we failed to communicate the meeting properly' vs. |
38 |
'Due to our poor planning we failed to a majority vote in regards to |
39 |
the dailts of said future meeting, and due to a miscommunication of |
40 |
said details a meeting was set to take place without the full |
41 |
knowledge of the council'. |
42 |
|
43 |
I guess the second one sounds a bit better to me. |
44 |
|
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > 4) Something else. (What?) |
47 |
|
48 |
post mortem! |
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
But seriously, either we vote now or we vote in six weeks. The only |
52 |
disadvantage I see to voting now is essentially a loss of face for you |
53 |
if you don't get a voted back in. |
54 |
|
55 |
The disadvange for voting later is being labeled as 'the council that |
56 |
skipped the meeting and ignored the rules' and possibly a higher |
57 |
probabillity of not getting voted back in due to said labeling. |
58 |
|
59 |
Isn't being a leader of a group of random people fun?...*sigh*. |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> |
63 |
> I don't know the relevance of my opinion on this topic but what the heck. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> 1 = lame |
66 |
> 2 = less lame |
67 |
> 3 = least lame |
68 |
> 4 = cant comment on non-existence so how about no? |
69 |
> |
70 |
> Seriously, this wasn't advertised enough, the decision for the meeting IIRC |
71 |
> was made at the tail end of your regular meeting and continued even when |
72 |
> other Council members had already left. I do wish more, if not most, of you |
73 |
> showed for the meeting but I cant hold it against you when it was announced |
74 |
> the way it was (end of meeting and via logs about a meeting you had attended |
75 |
> so why would you read them). |
76 |
> |
77 |
> I think voting you guys out would be lame. I like that word regarding this |
78 |
> topic. :) I personally will vote for each of you again should you choose to |
79 |
> run in the next election. |
80 |
> |
81 |
> Regarding that #!$$#@% about Trustees trying to take over control of |
82 |
> Council, you really don't even want to get me started on my thoughts at that |
83 |
> but expletive expletive expletive should cover that nicely. It is sooo not |
84 |
> what the Trustees were voted in to do, that being to handle many legal and |
85 |
> non-technical matters. If ever there would be a reason for developers to |
86 |
> quit, I would cite that as a prime candidate. Sorry, to my knowledge we |
87 |
> didn't ask for a take over. |
88 |
|
89 |
I see where he is coming from; I disagree (maybe he is just too new..I |
90 |
dunno..this is pretty normal for us by now <g>). I'm certain said |
91 |
trustee is tired of some of this bullcrap and I think he wants to |
92 |
change stuff. I also think his methods are...poorly chosen (certainly |
93 |
it will be difficult to change in a trustee position at this point in |
94 |
time). |
95 |
|
96 |
> |
97 |
> |
98 |
> Kind regards, |
99 |
> Christina Fullam |
100 |
> Gentoo member of stuff but speaking her own mind in case it offends some |
101 |
> people on this list. ;-) |
102 |
> |
103 |
> |
104 |
> |
105 |
> |
106 |
> |
107 |
> -- |
108 |
> gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list |
109 |
> |
110 |
> |
111 |
-- |
112 |
gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list |