| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> By the same logic, council members should not be members of _any_ |
| 4 |
>> project, because the council can override any project's decisions. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Yes. That sounds irritating but think about the following: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Person X is member of project Z and also in council. The majority of |
| 9 |
> project Z opposes the opinion of X. Maybe they vote on that decision and |
| 10 |
> the other opinion just won with _one_ vote. Now X sits in the council. X |
| 11 |
> has the power to overrule the project's decision by influencing other |
| 12 |
> council members. X doesn't have to participate in the council's vote on |
| 13 |
> this at all, to poisoning the pool of council members it is enough to be |
| 14 |
> around and let others know you have a different opinion and disagree |
| 15 |
> with the project's decision. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> But this is getting complicated. No one wants to forbid X's opinion at |
| 18 |
> all. It is good that X has his/her own view. But it should be clear on |
| 19 |
> the other hand that just because X has the power to poisoning the pool |
| 20 |
> of council members he/she shouldn't be around. X has to respect the |
| 21 |
> project/team's decision. He/she has to acknowledge that the majority |
| 22 |
> wants a different way. A person supporting the project's decision should |
| 23 |
> be around and consulted if there are any questions. And other council |
| 24 |
> member should respect (weight) the project's decision more than the |
| 25 |
> opinion of council member. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Can you provide us with an example when such a scenario has happened |
| 28 |
in the past 12 years of council, or is the above purely hypothetical? |
| 29 |
Because in the latter case it is not an actual problem that needs to |
| 30 |
be solved. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It is not a game of Nomic that we're playing here, but we are trying |
| 33 |
to run a distro. IMHO precluding council members from participating in |
| 34 |
projects isn't helpful. Or do we really want a council that is sitting |
| 35 |
in an ivory tower, completely detached from the daily distro work? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
>> It is known prior to a council election if a candidate is a member |
| 38 |
>> of ComRel or QA. So, leave it to the electorate to evaluate if such |
| 39 |
>> a candidate is suitable for the council. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Remember we are talking about this now when everything is more or less |
| 42 |
> fine. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Right, so why do you want me (as a council member) to step down from |
| 45 |
QA then? How would that improve the quality of the distro? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> But such a rule is for the future to protect the project when |
| 48 |
> things are going wrong. Do you really want to see this happen, a council |
| 49 |
> following their own agenda and nobody can stop them because they were |
| 50 |
> elected for 1y? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> Like in politics, to get elected you can say "I will do A" but once you |
| 53 |
> got elected you can do the opposite... so leaving it to the electorate |
| 54 |
> sounds nice but not if council members can do the opposite of what they |
| 55 |
> said before the election without any consequences. So you want to limit |
| 56 |
> the power to limit the possible damage... just in case. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Finally this is a question of trust, which must start somewhere (and |
| 59 |
this is true for most social interactions). Otherwise we would not be |
| 60 |
able to organise ourselves in any reasonable way. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Ulrich |
Archives