Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Council Agenda proposal for upcoming 2010-07-26 meeting
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:59:29
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Council Agenda proposal for upcoming 2010-07-26 meeting by "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
On 07/24/2010 09:42 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 24-07-2010 23:55, Alex Alexander wrote: >> Items with a *vote* flag cannot be moved a second time (unless there's >> new data to consider), so they must be settled at that agenda's meeting, >> in an attempt to avoid endless discussions. > > We should aim to ensure that votes do happen when an item is marked to > be voted in a meeting. However it depends on council members being ready > to vote at the meeting and on no new objection being raised during a > meeting. > If that fails, it might not be possible or desirable to have a vote when > people don't know what they're voting on or have some doubts about a new > objection.
Might I suggest that items that aren't ripe for voting simply be voted down, with comments made that the item isn't being outright rejected so much as rejected-for-now, with more work needed. Guidance should of course be given on what needs to be done. Sometimes an idea just isn't worked out enough to move forward - there isn't consensus. The council meetings shouldn't really be the place to do such working-out. IRC, blogs, lists, etc are all much better for this. I'm not a big fan of standing agenda items - even for status updates. If there are status updates they should be VERY brief - after all you could just provide it via the list. If an item isn't worked out then just keep it outside of the meeting. You would need to make sure that for things like devrel appeals/etc that appropriate action is taken while the issue remains under consideration (I'm not sure whether policy is to ban before appeal and then unban later, or vice-versa), and make sure everybody understands that the appeal is still in effect. If immature items become a big problem, here is another thought - have more meetings, but only one meeting per month is official. The unofficial meetings would just be designated times where everybody can show up and have discussion, but no votes would be held. That would give people time to work out issues, without triggering slacker clauses and taking up official meeting time. Rich