1 |
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally, |
5 |
>> I don't want to vote for the council now. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Then don't! Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of those |
8 |
> who are represented to triumph? If that will is to not hold an election, |
9 |
> wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it? |
10 |
|
11 |
So minimally we would require a vote to determine 'the will of the |
12 |
represented'. Note that this thread is insufficient to determine that |
13 |
(there are plenty of devs not participating in this thread). |
14 |
|
15 |
> |
16 |
>> The problem is that we have a |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> policy (which clearly needs some clearing as not everyone agrees on it) |
19 |
>> and that pretending it doesn't exist or to change it and apply it |
20 |
>> retroactively is a bad precedent. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I think the worst precedent to set would be one of following policies at any |
24 |
> cost. I'd say that one of the key differences between people and machines |
25 |
> is that the latter merely follow a pre-designed set of rules, while the |
26 |
> former are free to do whatever is best in a given situation. Why should we |
27 |
> ignore common sense in favor of "if p then q ; p==true ; therefore q"? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Policies are important. It is important that they be well thought out. It |
30 |
> is also important that when a policy is dumb that people not blindly follow |
31 |
> it. I hope that when infrastructure is maintaining systems in accordance |
32 |
> with some standard procedure that when they see an error in the procedure |
33 |
> that will cause major disruption they don't just say "well, the council or |
34 |
> whoever approved this procedure - they must want me to hose the cvs server." |
35 |
|
36 |
So the important thing to realize is that it is not trivial to |
37 |
determine when policy is 'dumb.' |
38 |
|
39 |
I personally think the policy is very clear and effective; it makes |
40 |
the council accountable and it essentially prevents what happened (the |
41 |
council slacked off during an important meeting). How else should we |
42 |
punish them? Is there any punishment that does not involve an |
43 |
election? I would entertain alternative punishments. I would not |
44 |
entertain 'changing policy and doing nothing' as that kind of implies |
45 |
council members can basically miss any meetings without repercussions |
46 |
and that is untrue in my reckoning. |
47 |
|
48 |
> |
49 |
> If the council does decide to hold new elections, could they at least make a |
50 |
> point to nuke this bullet item in GLEP 39? I think the whole slacker policy |
51 |
> is a bit harsh in general - maybe it could be adjusted somewhat. At the |
52 |
> very least, there should be some policy regarding notice for meetings - if |
53 |
> somebody is on vacation for two weeks it would be a bummer for them to be |
54 |
> marked a slacker because they didn't hear about a meeting... |
55 |
> -- |
56 |
> gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |
57 |
> |
58 |
> |
59 |
-- |
60 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |