Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o>
To: 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: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:57:32
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22 by Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > 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?
To make sure different views are represented in council's decisions and to make sure the decisions are well-balanced. This can be partially accomplished with having, say, 3 council members, of course - but well, it's 5 to make sure.
> > 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?
In fact we had a constant influx of new council members constantly in the past - which did also work somehow (I'd say it wasn't a problem in the past). With having elections every 6 months we *could* start to re-fill open slots with the next election (except there are more than ~2 open slots) and therefore won't have to deal with new council members constantly but only every 6 months.
> > 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.
Yup, "election by all devs"
> 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.
In the past the council iirc didn't vote upon changes to the process of voting for, size and lengths of terms of the council. (Adding the _reopen_nominations candidate was something people took part in the discussion did agree with, but there was no council or developer vote on that.) It doesn't hurt to cast a vote by all developers on that, but this vote does legitimate the changes voted upon. Tobias


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature