|From:||Alistair Bush <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Leadership Structure|
|Date:||Tue, 20 May 2008 11:57:47|
|In Reply to:||Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Leadership Structure by "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:> > The problem with this concept is that the Council and the Trustees > represent different teams and the plan is to have a greater division > between them in the future. It can also promote tensions that could > escalate into a "war" between them with one trying to dismantle the other. > The current policies already state that the council can be "voted out", > although there are no rules on how to do it, and the proposed bylaws, > including their current revision, already allow for a vote of the > foundation members to remove the existing trustees. > If we have clear policies that either body fails to follow, I think > Richard's proposal for the referendum is a better solution to enforce > those policies. >Well this policy is in practice within many countries around the world. And within a Constitutional monarchy I know of only one example of something like that ever happening. It is called the Australian Constitutional Crisis. It is also one of the reasons I added the minimum period rule, so that in any situation one body could not remove another continuously. If there is a situation where a "war" breaks out it will be the development community who decides which group is right. We might be a bunch of idiots, but I think we have the intelligence to not get into a cyclical situation where every month we alternate between having a council or foundation election. On the whole I don't really have a problem with Richards proposal in general, but I disagree with somethings in particular. Firstly I always get the impression that people think the Foundation is just a holding company for the assets of gentoo. I think it owns Gentoo and _everything_ that Gentoo does (or is) is of interest to, and the responsibility of, the Foundation. I note that there have been ppl complaining about the "closed" decision making of the present Council, well the Foundation Charter states "Every aspect of Gentoo is and remains open. Gentoo does not benefit from hiding any of its development processes (whether it is source code or documentation, decisions or discussions, coordination or management).". The Foundation has a vested interest in how the Council performs its function. Why? Because the council influences whether the foundation meets its Charter. If the Council is closed, gentoo is closed and the foundation fails to meet one of its 4 pillars. Secondly, I despise situations when groups get to decide there own fate. If you have to submit a petition you really shouldn't be submitting it to the organisation/group your submitting it against. Who says the council doesn't need to just ignore it? What would you do if they did ignore it? it's their responsibility to submit it too mailing lists and call a vote. if anyone else does it, then it couldn't be considered official. Thirdly, I believe my suggestion can be written more consistently with less room for interpretation, etc, etc. When it comes down to it we really are discussing what will hopefully be the least used rules of the entire distro. I will attempt to merge Richards idea's with my own. 1) The Foundation call's for Council elections, Council call's for Foundation elections. 2) At any time during a Councils term the Council can ask the Foundation to call elections for Council, at which time the Foundation _must_ do so. (and vice versa for Foundation) 3) Foundation can dismiss Council and call elections. (majority or absolute vote?) 4) Council can dismiss "Foundation" (or more correctly all its members) and call elections. ( absolute vote only? ) 5) A Council or Foundation can't be dismissed within the first 2 Months of being elected. 6) The Foundation automatically delegates Development responsibility to the Council. 7) The Council may appoint Positions and delegate responsibilities.  8) The Council is the arm of Gentoo that defines the direction of Gentoo from a development perspective as long as it meets the goals of the Foundation ( Otherwise the Foundation will dismiss them, or possibly overturn there decisions? ).. 9) The Council must meet monthly ( with current attendance rules ). Rules surrounding extra meetings are at the Councils discretion. 10) Any developer may follow the following procedure to hold a referendum on any issue that will be binding on Gentoo (but not the Foundation): a) Create a petition containing a clear resolution with voting options (which must include an option to abstain and an option to decline the resolution). b) Collect gpg signatures from developers/staff. The requisite number of signatures is xx% of the number devs who made commits in the last 30 days. Note that the count of devs making commits is used ONLY to determine the number of sigs needed - any devs/staff can provide sigs regardless of their role or level of activity as long as they haven't been retired/booted. c) Submit petition to Foundation. The council will post the petition on -dev-announce (or -core if the petition so indicates) and allow two weeks for debate and two weeks for voting.  This means that the Council could appoint a leader and delegate all responsibility to them, it could also be used to imply that the Council appoints the leaders of each Project by accepting automatically the vote of that projects members. Therefore a leader of a project would have been delegated responsibility for the project from the Council. Hopefully this will give ppl something to think about at least. Alistair -- firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list