| 1 |
On 2017.01.11 16:58, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
[snip] |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> dev [< project] < Council < Trustees |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In which case it is only reasonable that if devs/projects can't handle |
| 7 |
> an issue by themselves they refer it to the Council. In this case, |
| 8 |
> the Council is a body elected by developers to handle disputes between |
| 9 |
> them. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I don't really see a reason to put Trustees in between that. I'd |
| 12 |
> rather |
| 13 |
> keep them as final step overseeing the Council, i.e. things to go |
| 14 |
> Trustees if there is a problem with Council. However, to avoid |
| 15 |
> the 'two-headed beast' problem, I'd say that the Trustees should only |
| 16 |
> intervene if legally required to do so, i.e. if the Council is really |
| 17 |
> doing their job badly and put Gentoo at risk of legal issues. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The problem is one of information flow. The Foundation need to |
| 20 |
intervene before a legal problem is created. Afterwards is too |
| 21 |
late. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That can happen in two ways ... the Foundation are voluntarily |
| 24 |
informed before something a bit iffy happens, so that they can get |
| 25 |
advice before it goes ahead (or not). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The Foundation can keep its ears open to what is happening and |
| 28 |
offer pre-emptive advice. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Under the present setup, neither of of the above always happens, |
| 31 |
which makes the trustees nervous. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> As for the other issues, I think I'll continue arguing once I see |
| 35 |
> the updated proposal. Thanks for all the explanations. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
You might just agree :) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> -- |
| 41 |
> Best regards, |
| 42 |
> Michał Górny |
| 43 |
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Regards, |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Roy Bamford |
| 50 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 51 |
elections |
| 52 |
gentoo-ops |
| 53 |
forum-mods |
Archives