-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.06.28 23:14, Ferris McCormick wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100 > Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@gentoo.org> wrote: > [snip]
> > What if an entire meeting and therefore any votes were staffed by > > entirely by non gentoo developer proxies? > > Unlikely, but perfectly possible under GLEP39. Would Gentoo feel > > bound > > by decisions that such a meeting reached? > > > > Currently, yes. > > > Oh. Don't talk about 'common sense' GLEP39 does not mention it, so > it > > doesn't count ... and its much rarer than you may think. > > > It's worse than that. I think 'common sense' is subjective and thus > not a useful method of interpretation. Even if one disagrees with > that > statement, 'common sense' is certainly cultural (do you suppose > common > sense in N. Korea is the same as common sense in S. Korea? I don't > think so at all.). So, 'common sense' for Gentoo still cannot be all > that useful a method of interpretation, because Gentoo most certainly > is multi-cultural. > > > Lastly, as a trustee and partly legally responsible for decisions > > made on behalf of Gentoo, I am uneasy with the concept of non > > developers making those decisions. Now reread my 'what if' above > > with that liability in mind. > > > It's not that bad. as long as council meets every two weeks, any > decision can be undone within 2 weeks (and council can always hold a > special session. Although under your 'what if' scenario, we have a > council which does not take its responsibilities very seriously.) > > Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world > > > I'm sure we all have different views of the world. But I generally > agree with what you have written here, I think. You agree that common sense can't be used and admit that a corner case exists that would in effect have the trustees pointing out to the council that they had made an error of judgement and need to reverse a decision that the last meeting made. I would prefer never to have to go there. I do not agree that an all proxy council meeting shows that the council does not take its responsibilities very seriously, rather that real life has hit everyone at the same time and they have appointed proxies. GLEP39 does not even set a limit on the maximum number of council members who may be proxied at any single meeting. As I have already said, I'm against the idea of proxies altogether. We should amend glep39 to remove proxies and ensure that council members are drawn from the developer community. Of course, that does not eliminate the possibility of the trustees pointing out to the council that they need to reverse a decision but it does ensure that decisions are made only by council members who are Gentoo developers. - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpH9GAACgkQTE4/y7nJvavFPwCguehKyVF6Ep294VWSHB14Dlq/ mKIAmwWe9bHlEHwYayljnsisUW8p3VsK =Npgw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
