1 |
Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o> posted |
2 |
1246546445.6186.33.camel@××××××××××××××××.de, excerpted below, on Thu, 02 |
3 |
Jul 2009 16:54:05 +0200: |
4 |
|
5 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: |
6 |
>> I'd like to see the dev body have a year-round voice in the council. |
7 |
>> Either via quick votes year-round on topics or simply by having |
8 |
>> discussion in the channel. |
9 |
|
10 |
> What I'd like to see for sure is a formal rule on who can decide to |
11 |
> modify or change parts of glep 39. As it's the council's constitution |
12 |
> somehow, we have two options from my pov (besides that a former council |
13 |
> did decide the council itself can change it's rules): - a large majority |
14 |
> (at least 5 out of 7) of council members needs to ack the change |
15 |
> - changes to glep 39 require a vote with all developers participating |
16 |
> and a large majority (2/3 or 3/4) needs to ack the suggested change |
17 |
|
18 |
[posting to -devel only, as gmane has council as one-way, appropriately] |
19 |
|
20 |
A vote of all developers is a bit steep, but maybe that's the intent. As |
21 |
already mentioned, tho, it'd have to be a super-majority of those voting. |
22 |
|
23 |
But the 5/7 supermajority rule for council to change its own constitution |
24 |
is a really good idea, IMO. That's a 71% supermajority, and should be |
25 |
enough, IMO. I've always been uncomfortable with the simple majority |
26 |
changing its own constitution or bylaws idea, Gentoo council or |
27 |
elsewhere. It's just too unstable for the constitutional level. |
28 |
|
29 |
>> An EAPI review committee could work well also. As long as we could get |
30 |
>> non bias people in there. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I was thinking about that for quite some time and as long as we get some |
33 |
> non-biased people in there we should try that as well. |
34 |
|
35 |
IMO, the "official PM implementation required before final approval" |
36 |
serves well enough as a practical cap on things, there. As long as that |
37 |
is understood, and council approves a recommendation, then stamps the |
38 |
final spec when implemented, an EAPI committee can't go entirely |
39 |
renegade, no matter who's on it. |
40 |
|
41 |
Plus, the committee approach was effectively what we did for EAPI-3 |
42 |
already, except that arguably council was too hands-on, and more of the |
43 |
debate happened on the dev list and on council than was perhaps |
44 |
appropriate. |
45 |
|
46 |
We already have a list for EAPI/PMS discussion, and I believe |
47 |
announcements and proposals can be made to dev (and/or council) lists |
48 |
with followups set to dev, for discussion. If we simply use what we have |
49 |
and follow that rule, those interested enough to debate it there, |
50 |
effectively form the committee, regardless of whether there's an official |
51 |
one or not. |
52 |
|
53 |
What remains, then, would be for the council to choose a spokeperson to |
54 |
keep them informed of updates and present the details. That person |
55 |
should be seen as reasonably unbiased in ordered to make it work well for |
56 |
all sides, and they should be given a clear mandate from council that |
57 |
will effectively make them chairman of the committee, since they |
58 |
represent it, whether it's formalized or not. |
59 |
|
60 |
Then let that spokesperson present the recommendation to council, |
61 |
preferably in written form, perhaps with a 10 minute verbal meeting time- |
62 |
limit, with the details hashed out however it gets hashed out on the EAPI/ |
63 |
PMS list (council shouldn't need to interfere there, except by creating |
64 |
the spokesperson position, with said spokeperson serving at the pleasure |
65 |
of the council, so they can be removed and someone else appointed, if |
66 |
deemed necessary), with anyone from that list, or dev, or user, able to |
67 |
present an objection, again preferably in written form, with say a 2- |
68 |
minute verbal argument meeting time-limit. |
69 |
|
70 |
Then after the presentation, vote. As with EAPI-3, do it in two stages, |
71 |
preliminary approval, then after implementation, final approval. Total |
72 |
in-meeting time, x2: 10 minutes for spokesperson verbal presentation of |
73 |
written position, made available X days pre-meeting, 2 minutes x N people |
74 |
for independent support/disagree statements (say two people, 4 minutes), |
75 |
one minute for administrative (transitions, etc), 5 minutes at final |
76 |
approval for portage lead if he wishes, 5 minutes for voting. Total 20 |
77 |
minutes meeting time for preliminary approval, 25 minutes for final |
78 |
approval, 45 minutes over two meetings. If it's voted down, it's sent |
79 |
back for further revisions, and won't be scheduled for another chance at |
80 |
council meeting approval for six months. |
81 |
|
82 |
If the council members haven't done their homework and aren't ready to |
83 |
vote at the meeting, it reflects badly on them. If the EAPI committee |
84 |
spokesperson doesn't have the written presentation ready in time, or |
85 |
can't manage his 10 minute verbal presentation, or if there's more than |
86 |
2-3 people lining up for their 2-minute slot to oppose it, it reflects |
87 |
badly on him, and the council should consider a different spokesperson. |
88 |
|
89 |
Bottom line, IMO, the resources are already there, as are, to some |
90 |
extent, the rules. All council needs to do is find and approve a single |
91 |
reasonably non-biased person to be a spokesperson, and enforce the rules |
92 |
on its own time, with everyone working together to enforce followups to |
93 |
the EAPI/PMS list for anything coming up on dev of that nature. |
94 |
|
95 |
> Therefore: push Sunrise! |
96 |
|
97 |
++ (I already posted agreement on prefix.) |
98 |
|
99 |
-- |
100 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
101 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
102 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |