| 1 |
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 05:30 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically |
| 3 |
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel |
| 4 |
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even |
| 7 |
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole |
| 8 |
> Gentoo dev list to see. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
Two topics: The first substantive, the second procedural. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Substantive |
| 13 |
----------- |
| 14 |
It is not clear whether or not Gentoo currently has a Code of Conduct or |
| 15 |
even if the Council wishes it to. As you know, we do have a draft of |
| 16 |
one, at least, but it is not complete. Now, that in itself is not a |
| 17 |
problem because a final Code requires an iterative process based on |
| 18 |
experience and feedback. If we start with a "final" Code of Conduct, it |
| 19 |
will be wrong and subject to revision anyway. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What are not clear are (1) whether the Code of Conduct is in effect; (2) |
| 22 |
if so, how we enforce it. Code of Conduct explicitly calls out a |
| 23 |
Proctors group as its executive arm, but previous Council disbanded the |
| 24 |
proctors. So as it stands, if we are serious about a Code of Conduct, |
| 25 |
we have to resurrect the proctors or some equivalent enforcement |
| 26 |
mechanism. If we are not serious about having a Code of Conduct, I'd |
| 27 |
like Council to explain why not. (As an aside, I will mention that |
| 28 |
devrel does receive complaints on occasion which would properly fall |
| 29 |
under the Code of Conduct and proctor control --- either because any |
| 30 |
policy violation complained of falls under the Code of Conduct better |
| 31 |
than under a devrel problem, or because it is a user/developer issue, or |
| 32 |
because by the time it gets to us it's stale, or .... You might get the |
| 33 |
idea.) Anyway, Code of Conduct status needs clarification and action. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I can go on with this at length, but perhaps this reply is not the place |
| 36 |
for it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Procedural |
| 39 |
---------- |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
The election for this Council and its aftermath shows that we are not |
| 42 |
sure how to handle a situation in which it appears a candidate will not |
| 43 |
be able to serve if elected. As a more extreme example than the one we |
| 44 |
faced this time, suppose a candidate resigns or is suspended. I am |
| 45 |
still not sure, for example, who are actually Council members right now. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review |
| 48 |
> must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) |
| 49 |
> before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days |
| 50 |
> before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be |
| 51 |
> notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: |
| 54 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Flames to someplace else, please. Otherwise, as always, comments, |
| 57 |
corrections, additions, etc. welcome. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Regards, |
| 60 |
Ferris |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 63 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) |
Archives