2009/6/2 Doug Goldstein <car...@gentoo.org>: > All, > > The current council meetings have gotten completely out of hand for > weeks meetings have become nothing more then a continuation of the > senseless bicker-fest that have become the e-mail threads on GLEP54, > GLEP55, and EAPI-3 without any real progress or sense coming of them. > It's taken me a little bit to step up and put a stop to it but I fully > intend on putting a stop to it. The point of the council meetings is > to bring up a topic and decide on its merits whether it should be > brought into the Gentoo Project or not. I quote from the first line of > the Gentoo Council website:
I am the author of both mentioned GLEPs but I don't feel too guilty about that. Council had every opportunity to decide upon them , one way or another, or state clearly that they don't like this or that. Instead, there has been a pointless discussion each time (4c comes to mind here). Imho, council should be less afraid to make difficult decisions. > "The elected Gentoo Council decides on global issues and policies that > affect multiple projects in Gentoo." > > We have all collectively failed the Gentoo Project since we have not > been doing this for the past several weeks. I propose the following > changes be instituted before the meeting and happen through the > meeting: > > 1) Agenda Topics are posted to the appropriate mailing lists at a > MINIMUM 7 days prior to the meeting. (That means the agenda must be > formed by this Thursday). > 1a) Any changes to the agenda should be ACK'd by the council members > (off list via the council alias). Changes can not occur less than 48 > hours from the meeting. Sounds good, but I would still allow some flexibility even during the meeting if no-one objects. > 2) The #gentoo-council channel become moderated as we had discussed > several times in the past. > 2a) Topics will be brought up and people wishing to address the > council and the developer body at large should speak to the day's > appointed moderator. We can take turns or I can do it (maybe it'll > keep my head from banging against the keyboard as it has in the past > watching the various non-council members argue completely non-agenda > items back and forth). > 2b) Requests are made in tells and honored in turn. The moderator will > announce to the channel who wishes to speak and the order they are in > and will efficiently work through the list. If you can not remain on > topic, you will lose your voice. I wouldn't be so strict here, use it as last resort. > 3) Once discussion on the topic has concluded, the council members > will vote on the actions requested by the developer body. That does > not mean it is time for council members to concoct an entirely new > plan by the seat of their pants... which leads me to the next topic. ++ > 4) Council members will now be expected to ACK the agenda on the > appropriate mailing lists at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If > you can't, let the council know. You should be able to do this without > relying on your proxy, but your proxy may do this for you as well if > you have an extended away. > 4a) Failure to ACK the agenda will be noted on the meeting minutes. > 4b) Council members will be expected to formulate their thoughts in > reply to the agenda items and to research the discussion they wish to > have on the mailing list PRIOR to the meeting and not fly by the seat > of their pants. > 4c) "The first I heard of this and I need 4 weeks to research this." > or any variation of the quoted statement is no longer a valid > statement. The point of the meeting is to weigh and debate the items > before us now. Do your research PRIOR to the meeting, not during. 4c) is the most important imho. Also, I think meetings shouldn't be limited to 1 hour. I would move the limit to at least 2 hours. Even if the process is improved, 1 hour is just not enough. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński
