Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Chrissy Fullam <musikc@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Vote: What next?
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 07:07:53
Message-Id: b41005390805220007t12cccaa5s818c1cbaa139b38a@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: RE: [gentoo-council] Vote: What next? by Chrissy Fullam
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