1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 08:58 Fri 05 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: |
4 |
>> Let me try to put it different: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> The assumption that the council has to vote for GLEP39, perhaps is |
7 |
>> wrong. Would it make more sense when the council would suggest the |
8 |
>> changes for GLEP39 and have the dev community vote on acceptance? |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> Beforehand, the council then -- internally -- has to vote if they |
11 |
>> agree on the changes being put forward to the dev community. |
12 |
>> I think there should be a majority vote among the council members |
13 |
>> before such proposal is sent out for a dev vote. |
14 |
|
15 |
> I still don't like it. I think that anyone should be able to submit |
16 |
> things to a developer-wide vote if desired, regardless of whether a |
17 |
> council majority supports it. I suppose maybe I would be OK with |
18 |
> having at least one council "sponsor" for the vote, but I hate the |
19 |
> idea of the council having a pre-vote veto on any idea they don't |
20 |
> like that changes how they operate. |
21 |
|
22 |
I think there are two alternative scenarios here: |
23 |
|
24 |
1. If the council itself puts forward the idea of restructuring its |
25 |
mode of operation, then of course there should be a council vote |
26 |
before it is passed on to the dev community. I agree with Fabian |
27 |
here. |
28 |
|
29 |
2. On the other hand, if such an idea is driven by the dev community, |
30 |
then the council shouldn't discuss it at all (not as council, of |
31 |
course individual council members can participate in the |
32 |
discussion). |
33 |
|
34 |
> Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80% |
35 |
> of developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very |
36 |
> highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally |
37 |
> changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it |
38 |
> cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo |
39 |
> wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them |
40 |
> make the choice. |
41 |
|
42 |
I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it. |
43 |
Why do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst |
44 |
council members and devs in general? |
45 |
|
46 |
Ulrich |