| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> No, its not that you trust someone or you don't --- you might trust them in |
| 4 |
> some situations but not others. Usually the discriminating factor is |
| 5 |
> whether the person is "untainted" by the issue, ie. you can't see any reason |
| 6 |
> why they would judge one way or another out of self-interest. We sometimes |
| 7 |
> call this "objectivity". Part of the subtext I see in this thread is "how |
| 8 |
> do we structure our governance such that we preserve objectivity." So, my |
| 9 |
> answer is you probably can't and when someone finds themselves in what is |
| 10 |
> perceived as a conflict of interest by many (even if the person himself |
| 11 |
> doesn't think so), then abtain. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'll buy everything you said but your use of the word "many." I would |
| 15 |
not consider your example a conflict of interest. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If I'm on the Council and the Council is asked to censure me, I'll |
| 18 |
recuse myself. If I'm on the Council and the Council is asked to |
| 19 |
censure I team I happen to be a member of, I probably won't recuse |
| 20 |
myself. If that concerns anybody, then don't vote for me. :) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't plan on recusing myself from discussions indirectly impacting |
| 23 |
packages I use/maintain either, unless there really is some kind of |
| 24 |
personal issue at stake. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't really get all that attached to things like this. Maybe some |
| 27 |
would have difficulty fairly re-evaluating a decision they partook in, |
| 28 |
or even made themselves. I try not to. If the Council decides to |
| 29 |
boot some package I maintain from the tree, that's what overlays are |
| 30 |
for. When I come into a Council meeting I try to add value in the |
| 31 |
discussion, and I've been known to vote differently than I intended to |
| 32 |
walking in. If it were otherwise I'd suggest that we quite wasting |
| 33 |
time with meetings and just vote in bug comments or by email or |
| 34 |
something. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If somebody feels they can't be impartial on a decision due to |
| 37 |
personal bias and wish to abstain, then I fully support them in this. |
| 38 |
Heck, if there were a huge outcry (meaning lots of devs, not a dozen |
| 39 |
devs making lots of posts) I'd probably also recuse myself. I just |
| 40 |
don't feel the need to abstain from a decision because a few people |
| 41 |
will get upset by it - I try to find compromises when we can, but you |
| 42 |
can never please everybody. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
That's my opinion, anyway. I'm opposed to the mandatory non-overlap |
| 45 |
in the Council and Trustees as well, but as long as those are the |
| 46 |
rules I follow them like everybody else does... |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Rich |
Archives