| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:08 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It is clear. It is understood. If you have an issue with it then send mgorny |
| 4 |
> a patch. As stated, it nullifies a particular decision. Plain and simple. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
If it ONLY nullifies a decision, then basically the result is the |
| 8 |
status quo before any decision was made. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> It doesn't *need* to be reversed. It is a nullification of a decision because |
| 11 |
> of disagreement by the developer community. So, the council should react by |
| 12 |
> trying something that is "in line" with the issues that were brought up. |
| 13 |
> Plain and simple. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So your proposed workflow is: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Council approves A. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Devs object to A. Devs perform GR. A is unapproved. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Council approves B. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
At that point Devs are then free to do another GR? If we're going to |
| 24 |
the trouble to nullify a decision, wouldn't we want to decide what |
| 25 |
goes in its place? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The only thing the GR would convey is that A is unacceptable. |
| 28 |
Certainly there would be a bazillion list posts talking about why |
| 29 |
various individuals think A is unacceptable, but that doesn't really |
| 30 |
tell anybody what factions might exist and what compromise might be |
| 31 |
accepted by a majority. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> No, the council just proposes a new/modified proposal to vote on. This should |
| 34 |
> have been a product of civil discourse. Understanding what the issues were |
| 35 |
> and addressing them. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Well, presumably that would have been done the first time. And |
| 38 |
nothing stops them from just proposing the same thing that was struck |
| 39 |
down, with or without modification. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> e.g. "The developer community believes service manager X goes against Gentoo |
| 43 |
> principals." |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Council: "Ok, here is a modified proposal addressing this concern" |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
How would you know what the concern actually is, if the only thing the |
| 48 |
developers all voted on was that they didn't like the original |
| 49 |
decision? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> What? The council can initiate GR to overrule itself? |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
So, my statement was based on thinking that the GR wasn't just |
| 56 |
rejecting a decision, but making a new decision of its own. Most of |
| 57 |
my subsequent comments do not apply if all it does is reject |
| 58 |
decisions. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> > |
| 61 |
> > Not sure where I ever suggested that being a volunteer excused |
| 62 |
> > non-compliance with policy. I simply pointed out that volunteers may |
| 63 |
> > not be enthusiastic about doing things they disagree with. That is |
| 64 |
> > just reality. It certainly shapes Council decisions, as it ought to. |
| 65 |
> > And again it was more of a philosophical point than a defect that |
| 66 |
> > needed to be addressed. |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> You do often. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Citation? And maybe save pontificating over it for a thread when I'm |
| 71 |
actually doing it? |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
Rich |
Archives