-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 07:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > <zeroch...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> The council really doesn't have the ability to just instantly vote on >> things outside of a meeting. The transparency of the body requires >> announcements about meetings, and their topics, with a reasonable amount >> of notice. It simply isn't possible to maintain these things and have >> the flexibility to instantly vote on things. Emergency action can be >> taken by many bodies, devrel, userrel, but the council is not expected >> to be the "quick fix" for things. > > I find it interesting that the Trustees, which are a legally regulated > body, can take action between meetings, but we feel that the Council, > which is not a legally regulated body, cannot. Legally the foundation > can even take action without any of the trustees present (it just > requires a LOT of members to support it). > > I'm not suggesting that we should just issue rapid decisions in the > middle of a flamewar. However, if we feel that all sides of a debate > have spoken we can perhaps announce a pending decision on -dev, > evaluate any responses, and then vote. Council members who do not > feel sufficient time has passed to evaluate the situation can vote to > postpone the decision. In order to pass a majority would still be > needed, so if 2 people vote aye, 3 vote nay, and 2 vote delay, then we > delay until one side or the other obtains a majority (as with any > body, the default is basically no action until there is a majority in > favor). >
I think the real difference is that most of the devs don't care what the foundation does as long as it keeps the lights on around here. Most of us, on the other hand, seem to care greatly about the development process and key decisions around that. If the trustees need to take emergency action to keep the lights on I trust them to do the right thing. If the council has to take emergency action to allow systemd units to be added without maintainer approval.... well, you see how stupid that sounds? - -Zero > I don't suggest that this should be the ideal method of operation. I > just see it as an option. It wasn't even my idea... > > Rich > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR7dTxAAoJEKXdFCfdEflK0l4QAKlVFy6xHHXnIlTzYzciCWvS qKq9v9tssIty//FvFYUlSv4cpudbO8jzThp2N9aB+2oMswT6vFaf+JlTIjZj4nvo fVW9pRzBPxmyLvQySW4YprpoUFYTKPDkEyxqT2wERPHEehY3mnw5b+6FKmWJRRgs v/XPCbuasV+HVHeLu2uIim4YtQcFcpuXF7E9qD7K7CTgUz0ZITDCyJG59N8jxlFE 8//hVKIxe8LTuRm08WQDFWr4veqOdCyZACGz8/PJP8SeSgJ65kKt7j6i77OywwRe TnmcYlR2eHFLtFUd64blFoURLfhirZj/AFknURX7U54mdkXFxLYWYCnBj+ZzQibP Lb3h0Uh0DLgDw2QMVDYwfgjueqtmd+urQn+0cAmRs8r8HjQvPJeA7Rwl6KYIC7DG rIN7GyYKR5IFX4ISKgy4fZPh37rJ74v52bCNBKtVxRWz8oQpna09m+pQRGdgHXIx fbkTGIwiYr+X7cbTx6XBCNXl6KJjZ6hhgjj/EQ77Q+PIms6JebvgwosvF6fYxs/M 1f+V2tGlHNbYgptoeoi/MTzqE+x1sQZZ0TDm/FImzp+ei4TfzZzUehwdh0fgAoLJ KLE7/NBy222NeX8WS8inj/sa0DHE/xSSsgpvKDiUcHFUA3nVGIBmWJqbKfEBYkos 8gUik9Q03vXz7cwFMi2M =NYxW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
