| 1 |
Hello, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'd like to discuss a problem I've been noticing for quite some time |
| 4 |
already. I've expressed it during yesterday's meeting open floor, |
| 5 |
and I'd like to expand on it here. I figure that most of the voters may |
| 6 |
be unaware of it simply because they recognize Council members for |
| 7 |
effects of their actions, and possibly from meetings summaries, while |
| 8 |
the problem becomes visible if you end up participating frequently or |
| 9 |
reading logs. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I don't want to generalize or blame specific Council members but I am |
| 12 |
repeatedly getting the feeling that some of them fail to find time to |
| 13 |
fulfill their duties outside of monthly meetings. The degree |
| 14 |
of the problem differs but it ranges from delaying feedback on proposals |
| 15 |
until the actual meeting to -- in extreme cases -- coming completely |
| 16 |
unprepared and reading all the proposals during the meeting. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I believe Council should work (whenever possible) in a transparent way. |
| 19 |
The procedure is somewhat built upon that concept -- you are expected to |
| 20 |
publicly discuss your proposals first, then ask for them to be included |
| 21 |
in the agenda and the agenda is sent a week before the meeting. |
| 22 |
Ideally, this should provide enough time for everyone involved to review |
| 23 |
the proposals, provide feedback and answer feedback. Then Council |
| 24 |
should have all the data it needs for the meeting, and should be able to |
| 25 |
quickly decide. Sadly, this isn't always the case. I will provide |
| 26 |
a few examples now. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The most recent example is GLEP 80. The pre-GLEP was submitted for ml |
| 29 |
review on 2019-03-04 [1], the GLEP was sent for the agenda on 2019-04-02 |
| 30 |
[2] and the agenda was sent a week later [3]. So in the best case, |
| 31 |
Council members had almost 6 weeks to review it. In the worst case, one |
| 32 |
week. Nevertheless, during the yesterday's meeting one of the Council |
| 33 |
members has provided new feedback, and indicated that he didn't have |
| 34 |
time to send it earlier [log not yet uploaded]. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I probably wouldn't mention it if I hadn't hit a similar problem with |
| 37 |
earlier GLEP 63 update (to v2). In this case, once again a significant |
| 38 |
amount of new feedback was presented during the meeting. It felt as if |
| 39 |
Council members had reviewed the GLEP earlier but instead of submitting |
| 40 |
the feedback right away, they saved it for the meeting. [4] |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
This is problem not only because it can prolong the GLEP progress by one |
| 43 |
month or even more. This is a problem because instead of having |
| 44 |
a transparent discussion with everyone involved prior to the meeting, |
| 45 |
the problems are discussed at the last minute. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
However, the problem is not limited to GLEPs. Let's take a look |
| 48 |
at 'Forums (specifically OTW)' item from Feb 2019 meeting [5]. |
| 49 |
The Council has decided to 'defer discussion to mailing lists'. |
| 50 |
However, for two months now Council members have failed to actually |
| 51 |
start this discussion, whatever its purpose was supposed to be. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
If I go back even further, to the time when I was on the Council, |
| 54 |
I recall people asking for time to read the agenda items. I can |
| 55 |
understand that things like that can happen once but I feel like they're |
| 56 |
more common than that. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
I understand that people may not have a lot of time to spend on Gentoo. |
| 59 |
However, I believe that if one stands for the Council, one simply must |
| 60 |
be able to find necessary time to put more time than 1-2 hours a month |
| 61 |
during the meeting. Or -- to put it bluntly -- if you don't have time |
| 62 |
to be on the Council, please don't stand for the Council. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
As I said before, I believe the main purpose of the Council is to |
| 65 |
encourage and facilitate feedback from the community, and make decisions |
| 66 |
based on that feedback. If Council members fail to participate |
| 67 |
in Community discussion phase, and instead express their feedback during |
| 68 |
the meeting and vote based on that data, they take unfair advantage over |
| 69 |
other community members who are prevented from being able to freely |
| 70 |
address the new comments. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/9177c3c3dd9eacec4f74b8c9cd38131f |
| 73 |
[2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/3561b881d8094b2a7c9e52ba2bc02b1b |
| 74 |
[3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/81126506f08d0f11c5a6d4c0c459baf5 |
| 75 |
[4] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20180729.txt |
| 76 |
[5] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20190210-summary.txt |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
-- |
| 79 |
Best regards, |
| 80 |
Michał Górny |
Archives