| 1 |
W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode |
| 5 |
> > napisał: |
| 6 |
> > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > But let's get to the details. |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level |
| 10 |
> > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters. This |
| 11 |
> > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for |
| 12 |
> > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy |
| 13 |
> > > > defining the role of Council. Unless you have a strong reason to |
| 14 |
> > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are |
| 15 |
> > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established |
| 16 |
> > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state |
| 17 |
> > > > is undefined. |
| 18 |
> > > > |
| 19 |
> > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo |
| 20 |
> > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below: |
| 21 |
> > > > |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding. This proposal would make glep 39 need |
| 24 |
> > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council). At |
| 25 |
> > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote |
| 28 |
> > done among all Gentoo developers? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the |
| 31 |
> foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not. |
| 32 |
> So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our |
| 33 |
> members. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
What is your claim, exactly? Are you saying that back in 2005 |
| 36 |
the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are |
| 37 |
today? Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old |
| 38 |
rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members |
| 39 |
afterwards? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011. GLEP 39 was |
| 42 |
effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much |
| 43 |
different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it. So why |
| 44 |
the sudden surprise about it? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> Even if our members voted for something illegal we likely |
| 47 |
> wouldn't have to respect that either. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Unless you are claiming that GLEP 39 is illegal (sic!), I don't |
| 50 |
understand the purpose of this sentence. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> I've asked (recently) and received no reply to a request for a report on |
| 53 |
> comrel actions taken to be done on a monthly basis. A part of that |
| 54 |
> request was to receive notification immediately upon any indication of |
| 55 |
> legal risk. The last part of the request was to be have the trustees be |
| 56 |
> CC'd in comrel bugs (this is the big change that needs to be discussed |
| 57 |
> not here, it may not even be necessary if the former two requests are |
| 58 |
> honored). It'd be nice to receive this report like we do from infra |
| 59 |
> every meeting, see https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04#Infra_update |
| 60 |
> Normally this update is 'nothing new', but would probably be slightly |
| 61 |
> more than that for council/comrel. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Individual Trustees have been making multiple disjoint and inconsistent |
| 64 |
demands lately. Please take care to put some order in your house first, |
| 65 |
and when you are ready to provide a single, consistent, representative |
| 66 |
channel of requests, we will be glad to discuss them. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
-- |
| 69 |
Best regards, |
| 70 |
Michał Górny |
Archives