| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
| Duncan wrote: |
| 6 |
|> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> posted |
| 7 |
|> 20080603222620.71c89a1e@×××××××××××××××××.ca, excerpted below, on |
| 8 |
|> Tue, 03 |
| 9 |
|> Jun 2008 22:26:20 -0600: |
| 10 |
|> |
| 11 |
|>> AFAIR nominating has always been open to anyone, dev and user alike. |
| 12 |
|> |
| 13 |
|> Which does make sense. Giving the community nomination power gives |
| 14 |
|> them some input, while limiting the actual power and damage potential, |
| 15 |
|> since they can't vote on their nominees, only devs do. As with any |
| 16 |
|> nominee, if the devs don't like them, they simply vote for someone |
| 17 |
|> else. No harm done unless the devs consent to it. |
| 18 |
|> |
| 19 |
| |
| 20 |
| Agreed, but since there is a trend towards taking everything literally |
| 21 |
| these days I do want to point out that this opens up a DoS attack - you |
| 22 |
| could end up with a ballot 40 miles long if people use throwaway email |
| 23 |
| addresses to make and second and accept nominations. |
| 24 |
| |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Richard, |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
you're forgetting that only devs can be nominated and that one has to |
| 29 |
accept a nomination to be part of the ballot. At most, you could have |
| 30 |
the total number of devs on the ballot and that is something you can't |
| 31 |
prevent. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
| Normally I'd just assume that if this were to happen common sense would |
| 34 |
| prevail and these nominations would be excluded, but since there is a |
| 35 |
| trend towards policy-trumps-sense perhaps the policy should be that |
| 36 |
| anybody can nominate, but only devs can second a nomination? After all, |
| 37 |
| if not even one dev supports a nomination what is the point of putting |
| 38 |
| it on a ballot that only devs vote on? We could call the policy |
| 39 |
| G:ACNBDMS (Gentoo: Anybody can nominate but devs must second) in tribute |
| 40 |
| to another project where ability to quote policy is becoming more |
| 41 |
| important than ability to add value... :) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
No need to complex rules here. See above point. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
- -- |
| 46 |
Regards, |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 49 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE |
| 50 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 51 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 52 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkhGfDEACgkQcAWygvVEyAKC4wCaAm7hWHj82wV+oHQxi8H+XigL |
| 55 |
jfoAmwWt77qtSTvmDI9juBT0jkCPp8Yl |
| 56 |
=OEOJ |
| 57 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives