| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:06:24 -0600 |
| 2 |
Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Hi, all. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Since this is getting quite exhaustive, here's my point on the proposal |
| 8 |
> > as it is hinted now, and a counter-proposal. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > TL;DR: |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > 1. I do not mind encouraging more developers to join the Foundation, or |
| 13 |
> > even making it opt-out. However, I do oppose discriminating developers |
| 14 |
> > who decide not to join the Foundation. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> How is it discriminating? As you said below, another option is to have |
| 18 |
> the unified voting pool but vote for two bodies. However, in order to |
| 19 |
> avoid repeating splitting the vote I think that opting out of voting for |
| 20 |
> one should opt you out of voting for all. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That was just a general remark in case voting was tied to Foundation |
| 23 |
membership. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > 3. I don't think merging the Council and Trustees is a good idea. |
| 26 |
> > The two projects have divergent goals and different qualities expected |
| 27 |
> > from members. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I mostly agree, but more in the way that Trustees should oversee the |
| 30 |
> distro as a whole, but delegate technical matters to the Council, who |
| 31 |
> are better equipped to deal with them. Non-technical matters would boil |
| 32 |
> up to the Trustees. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
That sounds like turning things upside down. Usually matters go from |
| 35 |
down below to top. I see it like this: |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
dev [< project] < Council < Trustees |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
In which case it is only reasonable that if devs/projects can't handle |
| 40 |
an issue by themselves they refer it to the Council. In this case, |
| 41 |
the Council is a body elected by developers to handle disputes between |
| 42 |
them. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I don't really see a reason to put Trustees in between that. I'd rather |
| 45 |
keep them as final step overseeing the Council, i.e. things to go |
| 46 |
Trustees if there is a problem with Council. However, to avoid |
| 47 |
the 'two-headed beast' problem, I'd say that the Trustees should only |
| 48 |
intervene if legally required to do so, i.e. if the Council is really |
| 49 |
doing their job badly and put Gentoo at risk of legal issues. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
As for the other issues, I think I'll continue arguing once I see |
| 52 |
the updated proposal. Thanks for all the explanations. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Best regards, |
| 56 |
Michał Górny |
| 57 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives