1 |
Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
2 |
> One reason is I consider this a minor incident. But the main reason is |
3 |
> that it's up to the council to get themselves out of a situation |
4 |
> they've put themselves in. You can't be one day the body that rules |
5 |
> Gentoo, and go back to those who elected you the next day just because |
6 |
> it's convenient. There's an issue with consistency and credibility |
7 |
> here. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Denis. |
10 |
|
11 |
It really isn't the Councils decision and the only thing they can do to |
12 |
get themselves out of this situation is to hold an election. Firstly, |
13 |
even tho this is absolutely minor , GLEP 39 has been "breached" and it |
14 |
details what the solution is for that breach. Therefore that solution, |
15 |
a new council via an election, _must_ be performed. |
16 |
|
17 |
If it isn't then we will no longer have a functioning Council with a |
18 |
mandate from the ppl!!! ( maybe a little over dramatic ). There would |
19 |
be no requirement for anything they say to be enacted upon and the "shit |
20 |
would hit the fan". ( or would we just elect a new council and let them |
21 |
pretend to be the one true Council ). |
22 |
|
23 |
Could any developer challenge the validity of the Council. Who would be |
24 |
responsible for judging that, Foundation members? |
25 |
|
26 |
In fact, whose duty is it too call the election? Decide when any |
27 |
election is to take place? |
28 |
-- |
29 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |