| 1 |
On 13/02/18 04:59, Dean Stephens wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/12/18 19:39, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ulrich Mueller schrieb: |
| 4 |
>>>> I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose |
| 5 |
>>>> actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have |
| 6 |
>>>> felt this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the |
| 7 |
>>>> full council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. |
| 8 |
>>>> Thoughts? |
| 9 |
>>> By the same logic, council members should not be members of _any_ |
| 10 |
>>> project, because the council can override any project's decisions. |
| 11 |
>> QA and Comrel are special in that they can take disciplinary action against |
| 12 |
>> non-members, which there is no recourse against except appeal to the Council. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> At the very least: QA, Comrel, IRC ops (in every project specific |
| 15 |
> channel), planet/universe, forums, and wiki. Of those, since black |
| 16 |
> helicopter fantasies appear to be the order of the day, a ban on the |
| 17 |
> wiki could even, according to policy, keep a developer from joining or |
| 18 |
> leaving any projects (at least without assistance), so council members |
| 19 |
> should certainly not be allowed to be part of the wiki team since... |
| 20 |
> then at least there would be a council member who would have actual |
| 21 |
> knowledge of what the hypothetical problem that caused the wiki team to |
| 22 |
> take the hypothetical step of banning someone. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
There is a reasonable (not necessarily shared by me personally) |
| 25 |
school-of-thought that says that all these projects should be under the |
| 26 |
foundation 'umbrella' because they don't impact the distribution |
| 27 |
directly. They are all projects which allow the Project to function. |
| 28 |
This way, there could not be any conflict between these project and |
| 29 |
council, and foundation would remain the overseeing body .. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
However, I also know that the Foundation's mere existence is found to be |
| 32 |
problematic .. so this idea falls squarely on its knees at first glance .. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Unless perhaps WilliamH and prometheanfire can flesh out a more |
| 35 |
acceptable suggestion based on these principles perhaps? |
Archives