| 1 |
On 10/13/2016 03:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Thode |
| 3 |
> <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 10/13/2016 03:24 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> And what exactly would make the Foundation more appropriate to rule over |
| 7 |
>>> interpersonal matters of a (disconnected) body of developers? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> Council is for technical decisions, that they rule over 'HR' decisions |
| 10 |
>> is an overstep. 'HR' is generally close to legal, and thus the foundation. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So, this has come up a couple of times. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I disagree that the council is solely for technical decisions today. |
| 16 |
> Things like CoC have been their domain for a long time, and has been a |
| 17 |
> common point of debate in discussions of manifestos and such, and just |
| 18 |
> about every serious Council manifesto I've read tends to touch on |
| 19 |
> non-technical matters. Certainly those who vote for the Council have |
| 20 |
> chosen people who can speak to more than just how eclasses ought to be |
| 21 |
> factored. The reality is that a lot of the disputes that have been |
| 22 |
> settled by the Council in recent years have dealt with conflicts that |
| 23 |
> are not purely technical in nature. I think those currently in the |
| 24 |
> role have generally proven their ability to handle such matters, |
| 25 |
> though I doubt there are a lot of people on this planet who get up in |
| 26 |
> the morning looking forward to dealing with interpersonal conflicts. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I'm not saying that we couldn't create a future model where we have a |
| 29 |
> Council that is solely technical in nature, but that isn't the way it |
| 30 |
> is today. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I do think that it is important to create a model that makes sense |
| 33 |
> before focusing on who is in what job title today. We can always move |
| 34 |
> people around if the wrong people end up being in the wrong roles. If |
| 35 |
> the powers of a position change dramatically that might be a good |
| 36 |
> reason to hold a new election as part of the transition, etc. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> However, the issue still exists that we need to make sure that the |
| 39 |
> final roles make sense, and that they have the right constituencies. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Well, I wouldn't say that council should be solely technical, no project |
| 43 |
really is. More that the responsibilities of the council have grown too |
| 44 |
much and some stuff (comrel) need to be moved out. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives