On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of > > things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any > > rule at all concerning limitations to the council is tying our hands in > > our back. If the council never messes up, then this rule won't ever be > > used, and if they do, we'll be happy to have this handy rather than > > having to argue for ages and being told "you elected us, so shut up > > and if you don't agree, don't vote for us next time" (which is an > > answer I actually got several times). > > Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does > not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would > permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
Actually, while it isn't spelled out, this is likely the case, since the trustees (and the Foundation members, by extension) are the holders of the Gentoo name. The Foundation is what grants the Council its power by "allowing" Gentoo (Linux) to govern itself. Trust me, if the Council were doing something nasty and underhanded that would endanger Gentoo, the trustees would try to do *something* to prevent it. That being said, I don't think that anybody is out to try to harm Gentoo. We (the Council) understand that we cannot appease everybody all the time and don't make any apologies for not being able to do so. > This is very little red tape IMHO. That being said, the Trustees really don't have "jurisdiction" over the Council's technical decisions or their decisions on how to actually run Gentoo. This is a power the trustees could have, but it isn't one they necessarily *do* have. I have no idea if they would even want it and my opinion doesn't matter a whole lot, since I would be in conflict of interest in pretty much any decision. > If it's only stupid and not harmful it will be solved naturally with > the current structure by waiting for the next elections (either at the > end of the term or because enough council members resigned due to the > situation). There's a huge difference between the Council doing something against Gentoo and the Council doing something certain people don't agree with. The former is completely intolerable while the latter is very likely to happen with any decision the Council makes. Some people will always spout off conspiracy theories and their opinions on how they think things should be, which is all fine and dandy except that it isn't how things *are* currently. If someone wants something changed, they can very well work to get it changed. Trying to force the Council to do something via underhanded tactics or baseless accusations doesn't do much. Getting the community together does. If the community decided that the Council is only allowed to hold meetings on Thursday when the moon is full, we'd abide by it. I just find this whole situation hysterical since you have so many people saying the Council needs to "grow a pair" and actually try to enact some good, and when we do, you hear a few vocal individuals running around screaming like we killed their kitten. So which is it? Would you rather have a strong Council that is capable of making decisions without having to worry about whether that decision is popular or not, or would you rather have a weak Council that cannot do anything without prior developer approval, completely castrating their abilities to enact change for fear of being removed from office? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
