| 1 |
On 2018-02-12 09:58, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose |
| 5 |
>> actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have |
| 6 |
>> felt this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the |
| 7 |
>> full council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> Thoughts? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> By the same logic, council members should not be members of _any_ |
| 12 |
> project, because the council can override any project's decisions. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes. That sounds irritating but think about the following: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Person X is member of project Z and also in council. The majority of |
| 17 |
project Z opposes the opinion of X. Maybe they vote on that decision and |
| 18 |
the other opinion just won with _one_ vote. Now X sits in the council. X |
| 19 |
has the power to overrule the project's decision by influencing other |
| 20 |
council members. X doesn't have to participate in the council's vote on |
| 21 |
this at all, to poisoning the pool of council members it is enough to be |
| 22 |
around and let others know you have a different opinion and disagree |
| 23 |
with the project's decision. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
But this is getting complicated. No one wants to forbid X's opinion at |
| 26 |
all. It is good that X has his/her own view. But it should be clear on |
| 27 |
the other hand that just because X has the power to poisoning the pool |
| 28 |
of council members he/she shouldn't be around. X has to respect the |
| 29 |
project/team's decision. He/she has to acknowledge that the majority |
| 30 |
wants a different way. A person supporting the project's decision should |
| 31 |
be around and consulted if there are any questions. And other council |
| 32 |
member should respect (weight) the project's decision more than the |
| 33 |
opinion of council member. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> It is known prior to a council election if a candidate is a member |
| 37 |
> of ComRel or QA. So, leave it to the electorate to evaluate if such |
| 38 |
> a candidate is suitable for the council. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Remember we are talking about this now when everything is more or less |
| 41 |
fine. But such a rule is for the future to protect the project when |
| 42 |
things are going wrong. Do you really want to see this happen, a council |
| 43 |
following their own agenda and nobody can stop them because they were |
| 44 |
elected for 1y? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Like in politics, to get elected you can say "I will do A" but once you |
| 47 |
got elected you can do the opposite... so leaving it to the electorate |
| 48 |
sounds nice but not if council members can do the opposite of what they |
| 49 |
said before the election without any consequences. So you want to limit |
| 50 |
the power to limit the possible damage... just in case. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Anyways, William's proposal isn't going that far. So we should |
| 54 |
focus/limiting discussion on William's proposal. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Regards, |
| 59 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 60 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives