| 1 |
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi all, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The council can't make this change since it is a glep 39 change, so I am |
| 6 |
> bringing it to the community for discussion -- I assume there would need |
| 7 |
> to be a full dev vote to make it happen. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I agree such a change would need to be done through a global developer |
| 10 |
vote. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I feel that council members should not be members of projects whose |
| 13 |
> actions can be appealed to the council like qa or comrel. I have felt |
| 14 |
> this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the full |
| 15 |
> council's ability to vote fairly on appeals. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> As a member of the council who would be affected by this, if it passes |
| 18 |
> and I run and am elected to council again, I would have no problem with |
| 19 |
> stepping down from QA. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I disagree with this proposal. |
| 22 |
I don't agree with the idea that a developer that is member of a project, |
| 23 |
won't be able to have a fresh look on an issue when that is appealed to |
| 24 |
the council. |
| 25 |
Also, I think these type of issues are best left to the electorate than to |
| 26 |
be set as "rules in stone". |
| 27 |
FTR, I've disagreed since it was proposed, with the restriction in |
| 28 |
the bylaws of the Foundation that forbids anyone from serving at the same |
| 29 |
time in the council and in the Foudation. I've always felt that should |
| 30 |
have been left to the electorate. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Attached is a patch for glep 39 which will make this change. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Thoughts? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> William |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Regards, |
| 39 |
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto |
| 40 |
Gentoo Developer |
Archives