| 1 |
On 18-02-13 03:43:29, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > Attached is a patch for glep 39 which will make this change. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Thoughts? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> William, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> the actions of all projects can be appealed with the council. So this doesnt |
| 11 |
> make too much sense, unless you want council members to be temporarily retired |
| 12 |
> from Gentoo. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This is precisely why we have the listing of candidates for the council |
| 15 |
> elections, where comrel, qa, and infra members are clearly marked. If you |
| 16 |
> don't want any overlap, don't vote for these candidates, as simple as that. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Something else though... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Do you really think that working on comrel issues is "fun" and that this is a |
| 21 |
> much sought-after position? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Just about the only appeal of being comrel member that I could imagine is some |
| 24 |
> diffuse feeling of power, but believe me that is very quickly offset by the |
| 25 |
> xxxx you have to digest. (Of course one could try to just join the team and |
| 26 |
> not do anything, but that's not what I am talking about.) Also it's a bit like |
| 27 |
> described in the Hitchhiker's guide, everyone who really really wants to do it |
| 28 |
> is essentially unsuited for the job. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Food for thought... |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I'm against this change to GLEP39, and challenge everyone who doesn't want me |
| 33 |
> on the council to not vote for me in the next election. Cheers! |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Currently comrel is invite only, so you are not doing yourself any |
| 37 |
favors in baring yourself off from possible aid (at least hold yearly |
| 38 |
applications or something). At least in the Openstack world one of the |
| 39 |
responsibilities of being a project lead (PTL) is the recruitment of |
| 40 |
people to the project and curation of those people into 'core' |
| 41 |
reviewers. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I think actively recruiting to comrel would help(hopefully this helps |
| 44 |
alter the perception that comrel is a closed body). Further, I think |
| 45 |
reactivating the proctors would be good as well (which is actively |
| 46 |
being worked on). |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
As far as the proposal goes, this is my opinion (and only my own, not |
| 49 |
the foundations, since this needs to be said nowadays). In a perfect |
| 50 |
world we'd have separate people for each position and enough people to |
| 51 |
'man' each position. Unfortunately this is not (even close to) a |
| 52 |
perfect world. Thus, this is my proposal. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Any project that governs another project that makes group decisions must |
| 55 |
not have more than a quorum number of members in the group making the |
| 56 |
group decisions. Those that vote in group decisions of child projects |
| 57 |
must recuse themselves if receiving an appeal from the governed project. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
This means that if council is 7 people, they cannot have 4 people in the |
| 60 |
group that makes group decisions within the governed child project. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
More specific of an example... Council would not be allowed to have 4 |
| 63 |
members (of 7) be members of comrel. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
This would also prevent (and allow with a bylaw update) members of |
| 66 |
Council and Trustees to 'cross pollinate' to a degree if extended to |
| 67 |
also modify the rule that council and trustees must not have the same |
| 68 |
members. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
I'll submit this as an alternate proposal to glep39 (rfc first of |
| 71 |
course) if people like it. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives