Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:02:39
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule. by Roy Bamford
Hash: SHA1

On 20-04-2010 17:40, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2010.04.18 00:46, Denis Dupeyron wrote: >> During the last council meeting we discussed voting by email, see the >> log at [1]. What should we do about proxies if we make that happen? >> What's the impact on the slacker rule? >> >> [1] > > Team, > > I have some strong views on voting by email. > > 1. Voting by email should be encouraged. This allows things to be > resolved on the mailing lists and never come to a council meeting. > It speeds the workflow and it therefore a good thing. > > 2. Voting by email in advance, on a topic to be *discussed* at a > meeting should not be permitted. In the event that the discussion > turns up something unexpected, there is no opportunity to vote in the > light of the new information. That further discussion is deemed to be > required, shows that not all the evidence is in and the council is not > ready to vote.
I agree with Roy about the usefulness of voting by email and the "danger" of voting before meeting.
> For the sake of clarity, if its just to announce a decision with no > opportunity for discussion, an email vote in advance of the > announcement is fine.
I think this falls in the already exiting rule that nothing prevents the council of having impromptu meetings as deemed required and announcing decisions. This obviously doesn't apply to GLEP votes which have their own rules.
> 3. email votes post discussion/meeting are fine. This allows GLEP39 to > be updated to remove both slacker marks and proxies which van only be a > good thing.
I don't agree with Roy on this point as I think we still need some rules to ensure that the council members don't go MIA or that the body simply stops working. We can have more lenient rules, but they should still exist, IMHO. I do agree that dropping the ability of council members to send proxies to a meeting can avoid issues and is thus desirable.
> Its perfectly possible for a member to serve properly on the council > and never show up to a meeting. With the span of time zones with the > current council, its already difficult for them to find a time to meet > and email voting would ease the pressure.
I don't think it's desirable to have council members that don't show up to a single meeting or that hardly have direct talk with the other council members. If we ever get a council with people spread so far in the world that it isn't possible to find any schedule to host a meeting with everyone present, I would prefer the council to have rotating meetings to allow each member to attend a meeting from time to time. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJLz46aAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPfjsP/2C07scMZmZ5hjg06x0KOaRn Hz6Sti8zqfX6ZEX6f7sUOTALm/EAdS8Yo5rxb9VZYrzdn07MVjzDQAIDFup1WMHV sRA/nAKEhD3aKThocAawndGIPpUgoAZxuFXTpYMuWDWlvtDbwA+0tKmH2muxFQlt m9b0qR82Ic+ddp/9KNgQzHJoDcgHSCeu0HXtCNv7Dq8JnxzB0jQ6mbdm5giTIjET 9FClTKGuIfu12xtWCMWe6yVZPntMW20agn9OG0UV0GHDRSGRsKED+z/4DB5UCofo vKpIPEjeYiaehmLiLsmNnVpU3xA2hLqADDyJXoSK0+yon68ahWPxL2wH4ejun+Xe 2cCh3qjawsdIqkVPj5pQnPM6WjZ2k3vwRMrgV3ELh8N6ufNoJOkPSgalIrzsgQDc dXZ3gpVXg1i+OkSCB06fBMQLmg5kF9r5wg0o/1kLzyjNTkzmAGEvdezqtfxyhFAf zrvmEY+NyTl5UN6guir3za9qLgS4Va2vKvwedv0YJhpwwHud5tuZTh79o2i7hz1M DI/IwbpEfuuXFjlmCb2npWJHkjkwJ25gkSMUPXLYMxEOpSWoLSkeQcZJwsvL4XKf WLIEUKcjxpFhzfssa/ONxNg7nlpK00qY40HPFl07NzUhmxJBFfMwm2rh9kNMIUu2 EVtBbBEkUQsEInCP9WDR =876+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----