Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:02:22 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote:
> > It was written under the expectation that at least some Council
> > members wouldn't do their jobs properly some of the time. It was
> > not written under the expectation that the Council as a whole would
> > try to find loopholes to avoid facing the consequences of them
> > screwing up.
>
> This clause punishes all for mistakes of 50%. So that is punishing the
> council as a whole. It's not a matter of loop holes. That would imply
> that stated policy creates gaps. This is a problem where an unstated
> policy has left a gap. Very different.

The clause doesn't punish anyone. The clause ensures that Gentoo
developers get the effective management to which they are entitled. Any
punishment is done by the developers as a whole, when they decide who
to reelect and who to reject.

> > You'll note that Council members are always free to stand for
> > reelection, so the punishment is decided by the developer base as a
> > whole, and not by policy.
>
> That is a stupid formality then and just goes to show/prove how half
> ass this entire thing is. What is the point of having an election if
> the same people end up running? Who's to say they don't do that again?

It'll only be the same people running if every developer thinks that
no-one on the Council has screwed up in any way. If that's the case, we
get the same Council for another year -- no harm done. But if some
Council members are held in general to be 'bad', they will be replaced.

When the required election takes place, I expect there'll be two or
three changes, the same as there were for most other elections.

> What benefit does Gentoo get by interrupting a council, holding
> elections, just for the same people to run again. Which would just
> extend their term. Not to mention screw up our time lines for
> elections. That is just totally stupid and futile IMHO. Allot of work
> doing an election over 2+ months for what purpose?

Other people will presumably run too. I know at least a couple of
developers who have said that they'll be seriously considering running
against the current Council because of their dissatisfaction with the
way things are.

You might as well say "what's the point in holding yearly elections if
the same people end up standing?".

> If we are punishing those on the council. They should not have a
> chance to re-run. Or at least those in the 50% not attending. Should
> not be allowed to run again. Those that were there, doing their job.
> Shouldn't be punished.

Having to hold an election isn't being punished. Not being reelected is
being punished.

> So at best it should be a partial election to replace some. Not all.
> But again this document didn't spend any time going into detail. But
> did spend time talking about things really not relevant to policy.
> But the past, etc.

Those things were relevant to the voting for the proposal.

> If we allow the same ones to run again. Then what's the difference
> between that, and allowing them a chance to make up for the missed
> meeting? Which a 15 day clause requiring any meeting be made up for,
> before punishment. Would have made much more sense, been more
> balanced, less harsh, and fair all around.

They can run. But anyone who's deemed to have screwed up too badly
won't be reelected.

One thing you should know -- developers had the choice of voting for
Grant's proposal with or without my slacker additions. They could also
have requested ballot options of "only the individual slacker rules,
not the 50% one too" had they wanted, but no-one did. The vote was very
heavily in favour of adding the slacker rules.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh