1 |
On 18-02-12 08:53:24, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
2 |
> How about if they just abstain from any votes where there may be a conflict |
3 |
> of interest? I would hate to limit the ability of people to contribute |
4 |
> technically just because they were elected to council. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> > Hi all, |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > The council can't make this change since it is a glep 39 change, so I am |
11 |
> > bringing it to the community for discussion -- I assume there would need |
12 |
> > to be a full dev vote to make it happen. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose |
15 |
> > actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have felt |
16 |
> > this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the full |
17 |
> > council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > As a member of the council who would be affected by this, if it passes |
20 |
> > and I run and am elected to council again, I would have no problem with |
21 |
> > stepping down from QA. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > Attached is a patch for glep 39 which will make this change. |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > Thoughts? |
26 |
> > |
27 |
|
28 |
I've thought a similiar thing, if we go this route we also need to |
29 |
ensure that a managed group does not obtain over 50% of the council |
30 |
seats as that mean they can't vote if they all obstain. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |