| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 5:42 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> The council can't make this change since it is a glep 39 change, so I am |
| 5 |
> bringing it to the community for discussion -- I assume there would need |
| 6 |
> to be a full dev vote to make it happen. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose |
| 9 |
> actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have felt |
| 10 |
> this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the full |
| 11 |
> council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> As a member of the council who would be affected by this, if it passes |
| 14 |
> and I run and am elected to council again, I would have no problem with |
| 15 |
> stepping down from QA. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Attached is a patch for glep 39 which will make this change. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Thoughts? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I am opposed to this change. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I vote for members of the council, and they should have the ultimate |
| 24 |
say in making decisions. Preventing council members from participating |
| 25 |
in QA or comrel does not seem beneficial to me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If things go poorly, my escalation path is still to an elected |
| 28 |
representative. If those same representatives happen to also have a |
| 29 |
say in the initial decision (before appeal), that's fine by me; they |
| 30 |
were elected just the same. |
Archives