1 |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:03 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:24:27 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:14 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > > a. the Council decision in question is final (i.e. a general |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > resolution can not be used to bypass the Council), |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > One question that this brings up in my mind is the duration of these |
10 |
> > decisions, because Council decisions are never really final. The |
11 |
> > Council can override its own decisions, or the decision of a prior |
12 |
> > Council. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> |
15 |
> By this logic then nothing is final. We might as well throw it all away. |
16 |
|
17 |
Finality has nothing to do with throwing stuff away. Decisions are |
18 |
made at a point in time. They aren't generally discarded lightly, but |
19 |
they also aren't clung to when they no longer make sense. That is all |
20 |
I'm getting at. |
21 |
|
22 |
> It is my impression that the GR is not "overridable" because it is a developer |
23 |
> wide vote. The important people are the developers... |
24 |
|
25 |
Great. Then write that into the GLEP so that is clear. My whole |
26 |
point is that we shouldn't have to rely on your "impression." |
27 |
|
28 |
> A council vote should *absolutely* be required to change the default service |
29 |
> manager. |
30 |
|
31 |
Sounds like you'll be needing another GLEP then. What other decisions |
32 |
should explicitly require Council votes? |
33 |
|
34 |
GLEP 39 only requires them when there are disagreements between |
35 |
projects. In the absence of disagreement between projects, no Council |
36 |
votes are required. |
37 |
|
38 |
> The GR GLEP, as Michał has written it, does indeed not have an expiration |
39 |
> date. The assumption you have made here worries me though. We *cannot* |
40 |
> legislate common sense. By the developer community enacting the general |
41 |
> resolution it is nullifying that particular decision. The controls of which |
42 |
> are clearly outlined. |
43 |
|
44 |
I'm not sure what "assumption" I've made here. I've simply pointed |
45 |
out that nothing in the policy states how a GR is to be reversed. I |
46 |
then proposed scenarios for how that could cause questions to come up. |
47 |
My goal is to make the policy less ambiguous. |
48 |
|
49 |
> A subsequent council would simply propose another vote to change the default |
50 |
> service manager when the time is appropriate. It should be clear as to why |
51 |
> the GR was enacted (which is detailed in the GLEP) and it should be clear to |
52 |
> any subsequent voting members what issues the *developers* had with it. |
53 |
|
54 |
If there is no longer any controversy over the new decision (which |
55 |
might be many years later), why require an all-dev vote? And of |
56 |
course a GR can always be used to re-override the Council decision if |
57 |
necessary. Obviously you'd want some controls on this so that we |
58 |
don't end up with the same issues being re-voted upon repeatedly. |
59 |
|
60 |
> > To use a different example, consider GLEP 39. Many consider GLEP 39 |
61 |
> > to be special and one that the Council cannot modify, but on the flip |
62 |
> > side there is currently no real defined process for changing it. |
63 |
> > (Perhaps GRs will become such a mechanism.) The result is that |
64 |
> > sometimes changes that might make sense don't really get considered |
65 |
> > because nobody feels empowered to make it happen. |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> |
68 |
> I don't see why the developer community cannot change GLEP 39 if they so chose |
69 |
> too. Just no one has wanted to do it. |
70 |
|
71 |
Probably because it is a hassle with no defined process. I'm pointing |
72 |
out that a GR could turn into a similar hassle. Ok, a decision no |
73 |
longer makes sense, but it is so painful to change that we just live |
74 |
with it. After all, a new GR requires collecting a bunch of GPG |
75 |
signatures/etc, even if all the devs and the Council agree with it. |
76 |
Or should the GR GLEP include a way for the Council to kick off a GR |
77 |
without the need for the requisite number of individual votes? Maybe |
78 |
offer that as another option - the Council can initiate a GR with a |
79 |
majority vote? |
80 |
|
81 |
Again, my goal here is to improve the GLEP. It isn't some kind of |
82 |
objection to the concept. |
83 |
|
84 |
> > In any case, my point is mainly that the GR GLEP ought to indicate one |
85 |
> > way or another how a GR can be modified. Presumably a GR can always |
86 |
> > be used to modify a previous GR. However, do we want to relax things |
87 |
> > further, such as by allowing GRs to be overriden by Council if there |
88 |
> > has been a Council election in the interim? |
89 |
> > |
90 |
> |
91 |
> No. The point of the GR is to override council. Not the opposite. So, |
92 |
> please see the previous paragraphs I wrote above. It nullifies a particular |
93 |
> decision. The new council will simply try to pass something new or modified to |
94 |
> fit the needs of the community. |
95 |
|
96 |
Presumably they can't pass something new or modified if it is related |
97 |
to an existing GR, because that would be overriding a GR, which you |
98 |
don't think ought to be allowed, even if it does better fit the needs |
99 |
of the community. |
100 |
|
101 |
If the Council wanted to pass something new or modified they'd need to |
102 |
propose it as a new GR. As such, the GRs really should be able to |
103 |
stand on their own without tweaking, because they're going to be hard |
104 |
to tweak. |
105 |
|
106 |
> Please *stop* using the volunteer thing as a crutch. |
107 |
|
108 |
Not sure where I ever suggested that being a volunteer excused |
109 |
non-compliance with policy. I simply pointed out that volunteers may |
110 |
not be enthusiastic about doing things they disagree with. That is |
111 |
just reality. It certainly shapes Council decisions, as it ought to. |
112 |
And again it was more of a philosophical point than a defect that |
113 |
needed to be addressed. |
114 |
|
115 |
-- |
116 |
Rich |