| 1 |
W dniu śro, 14.02.2018 o godzinie 00∶21 +0100, użytkownik Alexis Ballier |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:42:34 -0600 |
| 4 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Hi all, |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > The council can't make this change since it is a glep 39 change, so I |
| 9 |
> > am bringing it to the community for discussion -- I assume there |
| 10 |
> > would need to be a full dev vote to make it happen. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose |
| 13 |
> > actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have felt |
| 14 |
> > this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the full |
| 15 |
> > council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In most sane entities I've seen where there's a possible conflict of |
| 18 |
> interest, people remotely suspected to be biased not only refrain from |
| 19 |
> voting but also keep quiet during the whole discussion. All of this by |
| 20 |
> themselves. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I don't think we should prevent any such conflict by prohibiting people |
| 23 |
> from running from council (or forcing them to resign from other |
| 24 |
> duties). Self-discipline should be enough, but since you feel this is |
| 25 |
> not properly applied, maybe a rule to say they should not participate |
| 26 |
> to the discussion nor voting in those cases would be saner ? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
For the record: we currently count 3 QA members in the Council. Given |
| 30 |
their abstention, that means that for any motion to pass, all remaining |
| 31 |
Council members would have to vote 'yes'. If we had one more QA member, |
| 32 |
all motions would automatically be rejected by abstention. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
However, I would personally lean towards changing the voting model to be |
| 35 |
less silly and make abstention really distinct from 'no'. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Best regards, |
| 39 |
Michał Górny |
Archives