| 1 |
> On May 3, 2018, at 11:34 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> On 03/05/18 16:20, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>>> On May 3, 2018, at 11:10 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> On 03/05/18 16:00, David Seifert wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> While we're in the process of creating busywork, I'd also like to |
| 9 |
>>>> request a casual audit/overview of |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> - Ada |
| 12 |
>>>> - Antivirus project |
| 13 |
>>>> - Cjk |
| 14 |
>>>> - Embedded |
| 15 |
>>>> - Tcltk |
| 16 |
>>>> - Theology |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>> I would like a personalised 1-page report per project from the council, |
| 19 |
>>>> with confirmation from 2 out of the big 4 auditing firms (Grant |
| 20 |
>>>> Thornton is also permissible). |
| 21 |
>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> Kind Regards |
| 23 |
>>>> David |
| 24 |
>>>> |
| 25 |
>>> And for those who didn't notice it .. |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> </sarcasm> |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>>> +1 to Soap also. |
| 30 |
>>> |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> For anyone still in any doubt about the council's purpose .. they |
| 33 |
>>> rubber-stamp (ie ratify) or revoke (ie. cancel) proposals. They don't |
| 34 |
>>> come UP with the proposals, that's YOUR job. They don't DO work - they |
| 35 |
>>> just meet up and take credit. If you think they SHOULD be doing some |
| 36 |
>>> WORK .. maybe you want to vote in some new members next election cycle .. |
| 37 |
>> This is correct, although I wonder who would want to run for the council if it were to entail doing more than just saying yes or no to things. They can already volunteer to do those other things outside of the council. |
| 38 |
>>> </just sayin> |
| 39 |
>>> |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
> Whilst I do agree with the synopsis, I fail really to see the point of |
| 42 |
> the council's existence .. ditch it and just have a dev vote. Quorum+ |
| 43 |
> majority carries .. why bother with it?! yanno?! |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
The council’s existence frees the rest of us from having to consider every little thing. This solves the amadyl’s law slowdown from everyone trying to educate themselves on every project decision before voting, assuming that they all can keep up. Also, getting 7 people’s schedules to line up for meetings and votes is hard enough. Getting >100 people’s schedules to line up would be a nightmare. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
It is not that it cannot be done, but I see a switch to a majority vote making the decision making process chaotic. We do give up some things by delegating decision making to the council, but I feel that the benefits outweigh the downsides. If you disagree with a plan, it is far easier to take your case to 7 people than to over 100. It is not like any of them do not have the project’s best interest at heart either, so a well reasoned argument should prevail. Not to mention, if nearly everyone really does agree, it is highly unlikely that the 7 council members would be among those who disagree. |
Archives