1 |
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 21:54 +0000, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
> |
6 |
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti: |
7 |
> > On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:49:14 -0700 |
8 |
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> >> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39: |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a |
12 |
> >> new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one |
13 |
> >> year' is then reset from that point. |
14 |
> >> |
15 |
> >> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular |
16 |
> >> meetings or also irregular ones like this. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > Since I'm the one to blame for those bits of GLEP 39... |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > The wording's fairly explicit -- *any* meeting. The GLEP doesn't say |
21 |
> > that the council has monthly meetings. It merely requires *at least* |
22 |
> > one meeting per month: |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> >> The council must hold an open meeting at least once per month. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > The Council is free to decide when it has meetings so long as it meets |
27 |
> > that requirement. In this case, the Council decided to hold two |
28 |
> > meetings this month. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > Looks like you don't have much choice but to do what the GLEP says |
31 |
> > and schedule an election... |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Keeping an election is really not that much trouble so I would just do |
35 |
> it. As for why I didn't attend it's because my server hasn't really |
36 |
> been able to keep itself up lately and with no access to my regular |
37 |
> irssi screen I forgot to get myself online via other means. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Regards, |
40 |
> Petteri |
41 |
> |
42 |
> |
43 |
This is probably the best of several unattractive alternatives. It is |
44 |
very hard to read GLEP 39 as not applying to the "less than 50% |
45 |
attendance" Council meeting of 15.v.08. True, this seems rather harsh, |
46 |
but the alternatives seem worse. |
47 |
(1) We could finesse the meeting by calling it a continuation of the |
48 |
8.v.08 meeting, but that would rewrite the history of how that meeting |
49 |
ended; |
50 |
(2) We could say that GLEP 39 is meant to cover only the required |
51 |
monthly Council meetings, but that just ignores what the GLEP says and |
52 |
what one of its authors says its intent is (see ciaranm's remarks |
53 |
above); |
54 |
(3) We could say the 15.v.08 meeting is only adjourned, but that has the |
55 |
difficulty that the meeting could never start because of no quorum; |
56 |
(4) We could ignore GLEP 39, but that says that Gentoo uses written |
57 |
policy only when we like the results; |
58 |
(5) We could amend GLEP 39. Perhaps we should, but I am not sure we can |
59 |
amend a policy to apply retroactively to a policy violation and keep a |
60 |
straight face. And note that amending GLEP 39 is at least as hard as |
61 |
just following Petteri's suggestion. |
62 |
(6) We could recommend leniency in this case, but that might leave |
63 |
Council in a rather delicate position when they get to the pending |
64 |
appeals. |
65 |
(7) Other more controversial possibilities that I can dream up but which |
66 |
probably are best stillborn. |
67 |
|
68 |
This leaves the subject of the non-meeting unresolved and also the |
69 |
pending appeals. Probably we should hold the election quickly and pass |
70 |
that on to the next Council, but I think we should hear from those who |
71 |
have appeals pending on that. Thus, the CC, assuming email is being |
72 |
forwarded correctly. |
73 |
|
74 |
To avoid any confusion. I am speaking only as a developer and as a |
75 |
requested participant in this meeting whenever or however it occurs. I |
76 |
do NOT speak for Devrel on this matter, and I do NOT speak as a trustee |
77 |
for the Foundation on this matter. |
78 |
|
79 |
Regards, |
80 |
Ferris |
81 |
-- |
82 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
83 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |