| 1 |
On 07:46 Mon 27 Jul , Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 19:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 23:54 Fri 24 Jul , Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > The log and summary of Monday's council meeting (July 20th 2009) are |
| 5 |
> > > now available on the council project page at: |
| 6 |
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > 3. GLEP 39 |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > 3.1. Can the council decide on the process of voting amendments to GLEP 39 |
| 11 |
> > without an all-developers vote? |
| 12 |
> > > No: betelgeuse, dertobi123, solar, ulm. |
| 13 |
> > > Yes: calchan, leio. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I'd like some clarification here. GLEP 39 has already been amended by |
| 17 |
> > the council [1]. Are you declaring those modifications illegal and thus |
| 18 |
> > reverted? If so, this is retroactive because it changes the past and |
| 19 |
> > removes powers that were assumed by previous councils. Are you voting to |
| 20 |
> > remove powers the council previously had? If so, isn't that in itself an |
| 21 |
> > amendment of GLEP 39? |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > 1. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html?r1=1.2&r2=1.3 |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> My personal take on it. Is rather that we mostly all agree the council |
| 26 |
> does not have the power to modify GLEP-39 as is. If the previous |
| 27 |
> councils altered GLEP-39 and there are no challenges to it, then I don't |
| 28 |
> think the existing one is going to revert those changes (more so if we |
| 29 |
> admit that the existing one should leave it alone) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Here's my take on things. I think that changes to GLEP 39 that "fix" it |
| 32 |
are fine (in other words, amendments). Most developers aren't lawyers |
| 33 |
looking for every little loophole, they just vote on the basic model |
| 34 |
they want; so the council should respect that by making that basic model |
| 35 |
as good as it can be. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
But switching to a different governance model should get a global vote |
| 38 |
by all developers -- not because it's required to, but out of a basic |
| 39 |
respect for our developers and a desire to run Gentoo in a way that |
| 40 |
people want it run. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Thanks, |
| 44 |
Donnie |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 47 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 48 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives