| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> W dniu czw, 28.06.2018 o godzinie 13∶24 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman |
| 4 |
> napisał: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:14 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > a. the Council decision in question is final (i.e. a general |
| 8 |
> > > resolution can not be used to bypass the Council), |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > One question that this brings up in my mind is the duration of these |
| 11 |
> > decisions, because Council decisions are never really final. The |
| 12 |
> > Council can override its own decisions, or the decision of a prior |
| 13 |
> > Council. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The meaning of this is explained in the parentheses, so please stop |
| 16 |
> trying to bend it. The only thing it means is that you can't call a GR |
| 17 |
> to pass a motion that didn't go through the Council vote yet. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I was not suggesting that this meaning wasn't plain. I was just |
| 20 |
saying that no Council decision is final as a way to bring up the |
| 21 |
topic of duration/etc. I'm not proposing changing the wording of this |
| 22 |
part of the GLEP. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> When Council makes an apparently bad decision, the developers can give |
| 25 |
> it a yellow card. The Council is still in the game and can technically |
| 26 |
> can do the same thing again -- however, it has been given an explicit |
| 27 |
> warning, so I don't think we really need to consider it carelessly |
| 28 |
> passing the same motion again. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Sure, that makes sense, and that wasn't actually what I got out of it |
| 31 |
the first time. I just assumed this was a way to just do direct |
| 32 |
democracy, and not merely a way to strike down an individual decision. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> No. The GLEP repeats that multiple times: GR is not a generic voting |
| 35 |
> mechanism but a failsafe. I'd say calling for a global developer vote |
| 36 |
> is within Council's regular powers, and it's entirely outside the scope |
| 37 |
> of this GLEP. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Ok, that wasn't what I thought you were proposing, and I think that |
| 40 |
makes more sense. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> It really seems that you didn't understand the GLEP, and instead started |
| 44 |
> processing with your own vision of GR that's not related to my proposal. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Indeed. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Rich |
Archives