Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Jun 11th, 2009 Council Meeting Format
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:01:06
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Jun 11th, 2009 Council Meeting Format by Doug Goldstein
(items 1 through 2b):
> ...
+1. Go and read up Robert's Rules of Order folks. The equivalent for your own language usually exists. Erskine May (en_GB) and Code Morin (fr_CA) off the top of my head.
> 3) Once discussion on the topic has concluded, the council members > will vote on the actions requested by the developer body.
Specifically note for those here that wish to dissent: "Once discussion on the topic has concluded" If the council feels there is insufficent discussion or outstanding issues, it may be postponed. GLEPs have frequently been postponed in the past. Off the top of my head, the first time it happened was GLEP44 (20060209).
> That does not mean it is time for council members to concoct an > entirely new plan by the seat of their pants... which leads me to the > next topic.
For some topics, alternative plans MAY be appropriate. - For GLEPs I would say that alternatives are completely out of place. The suggestion that an alternative is needed to the GLEP implies that the GLEP author(s) either need to take the further input into consideration, or convince the objecting members of the council that the objectionable portion of the GLEP is indeed sound. - For other issues, the council should certainly have the power to come up with another plan - especially if blending presented plans leads to further agreement between dissenting parties. There are certainly precedents for this: - 20051215: Manifest1 multi-hash - 20070308: Executive powers and CoC actions
> 4) Council members will now be expected to ACK the agenda on the > appropriate mailing lists at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If > you can't, let the council know. You should be able to do this without > relying on your proxy, but your proxy may do this for you as well if > you have an extended away. > 4a) Failure to ACK the agenda will be noted on the meeting minutes.
The failure of a proxy to ACK should probably fall on the elected council member for whom the proxy was acting?
> 4b) Council members will be expected to formulate their thoughts in > reply to the agenda items and to research the discussion they wish to > have on the mailing list PRIOR to the meeting and not fly by the seat > of their pants. > 4c) "The first I heard of this and I need 4 weeks to research this." > or any variation of the quoted statement is no longer a valid > statement. The point of the meeting is to weigh and debate the items > before us now. Do your research PRIOR to the meeting, not during.
Could you codify the time requirement you expect councilmembers to put into their work? In the past, sometimes councils were busy with real-life, so independent research did not get done by any member prior to the meeting.
> I look forward to the current council members ack'ing this e-mail > (whether it be in parts or in whole) and I look forward to our Gentoo > developer body ack'ing this e-mail to show support that they want a > "goal oriented action taking" council and not a "delay and talk" > council. This council has only a few short weeks remaining and now is > the time to start reviewing candidates and seeing if they will do for > you in the coming year what you expect a council to do.
As developer, but also as a former council member, I'd like to ACK the general principles espoused in this email. A few of the details strike me as reactionary, but the concept is sound. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : robbat2@g.o GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85