Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:05:51
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years by Ulrich Mueller
On 12:30 Fri 05 Aug     , Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80% of > > developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very > > highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally > > changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it > > cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo > > wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them > > make the choice. > > I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it. Why > do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst > council members and devs in general?
But I'm not saying that. Instead, what if (this is a hypothetical, not saying it's reality) there's just a few council members whom the devs in general support? Let's assume the following scenario: The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees with the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from proposing any changes to GLEP 39. In other words, it sounds like what you're saying is that anyone could propose changes to GLEP 39 that go to a full developer vote. Unless you're on the council, in which case there's an automatic veto opportunity given to them first. That second bit is the part that doesn't make any sense to me. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: