| 1 |
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The clause doesn't punish anyone. The clause ensures that Gentoo |
| 4 |
> developers get the effective management to which they are entitled. Any |
| 5 |
> punishment is done by the developers as a whole, when they decide who |
| 6 |
> to reelect and who to reject. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Ok so what happens in the 2+ months it takes to elect a new council. Of |
| 9 |
which their first meeting is not likely to make much progress. But more |
| 10 |
establish bearings. Who is the council in the intern? What power do they |
| 11 |
wield? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> It'll only be the same people running if every developer thinks that |
| 14 |
> no-one on the Council has screwed up in any way. If that's the case, we |
| 15 |
> get the same Council for another year -- no harm done. But if some |
| 16 |
> Council members are held in general to be 'bad', they will be replaced. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> When the required election takes place, I expect there'll be two or |
| 19 |
> three changes, the same as there were for most other elections. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What happens if this discourages past/present council members from |
| 22 |
running or others? As we have seen with the trustees. Do we want to kill |
| 23 |
off the council. Being as how we have never gone down this path before. |
| 24 |
The outcome is unknown. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Other people will presumably run too. I know at least a couple of |
| 27 |
> developers who have said that they'll be seriously considering running |
| 28 |
> against the current Council because of their dissatisfaction with the |
| 29 |
> way things are. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Which concerns me. Given the abilities, level of contributions, etc of |
| 32 |
some of those on our current council. I can't think of any others with |
| 33 |
more knowledge or that would be better suited. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Will != skill. With the council being the top of our technical lead. I |
| 36 |
think that is 100% skill, and 0 will. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> You might as well say "what's the point in holding yearly elections if |
| 39 |
> the same people end up standing?". |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
That is completely different. That would be more of a sign of showing |
| 42 |
approval and reward of their actions. When we are punishing them due to |
| 43 |
failure to make a meeting, etc. That is not approval of their actions. |
| 44 |
Which should not be rewarded. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> They can run. But anyone who's deemed to have screwed up too badly |
| 47 |
> won't be reelected. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Only in theory. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> One thing you should know -- developers had the choice of voting for |
| 52 |
> Grant's proposal with or without my slacker additions. They could also |
| 53 |
> have requested ballot options of "only the individual slacker rules, |
| 54 |
> not the 50% one too" had they wanted, but no-one did. The vote was very |
| 55 |
> heavily in favour of adding the slacker rules. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Yes, and it was narrow cited. Likely high approval due to circumstances |
| 58 |
at the time. How many years ago? How many have retired and come on board |
| 59 |
since? Are the people, times, things still the same? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
I don't think people cared enough then or since. To considering the full |
| 62 |
implications of the clause the voted in. Thus it being partial and |
| 63 |
incomplete. Yet still approved, but never been enacted upon till now. |
| 64 |
Which at that time, reveals how half baked it was. Yet all still |
| 65 |
approved it. Not sure what that says, but doesn't seem good to me :) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 69 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 70 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives