Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private. > But you see, the point is to argue in *public* so that you can show *everyone* who can last the longest in a shouting marathon! -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009
Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private. -A On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Thomas Anderson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: >> Thomas Anderson wrote: >> >> > Steven J Long wrote: >> >> Denis Dupeyron wrote: >> >> >> >> > This list is for technical discussions only. >> >> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not >> >> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 >> >> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. >> >> >> > >> > Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have >> > had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). >> > Would you please stop that? >> > >> I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the >> benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my >> interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in >> a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to >> be. > > There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, > I > was referring to: > > "This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie." > > "And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign > rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking." <--- > Not > exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel. > > "You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC." > > "Nice summaries though." Not exactly an insult though it was probably > sarcastic. > > And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: "Clearly you are fairly > immature" and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both > unsubstantiated and untrue). > > And other in general attitude problems against me. >> >> > Also, public mailing-lists >> >> > are not for discussing your personal issues. >> >> > >> >> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a >> >> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. >> > >> > The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the >> > reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly >> > straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being >> > called a 'lie') in that summary >> >> You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have >> considered my point of view very much. > > So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into > something I > merely "haven't" considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my > image > of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in > the wrong. > >> > I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your >> > remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time >> > and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. >> > >> You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to >> maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the >> politicking, you didn't have in any case. > > Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd > be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more > impartial so I can improve my process. > >> As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I >> appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else >> puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. > > You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about > it > being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it > because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial. > >> >> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get >> >> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. >> > >> > See above, especially the part saying "for what he called". >> >> >> I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo >> devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means >> disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads >> like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran >> actually behaves than a direct attack on him. > > By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this > thread. > Think it's fair? > > >> >> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're >> >> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, >> >> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the >> >> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and >> >> not an issue of borked process. >> > >> > I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo stats server/client @ 2009-06-29
Sebastian Pipping wrote: > I more or less took a week off GSoC for LinuxTag. > It gave me the chance to further spread the ideas > behind Gentoo (and also PackageMap) a bit. I think > that was worth not producing any code during the time. I agree wholeheartedly, you did a lot in the past days even if it wasn't actual code =) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo IRC _is_ better than ML ;)
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Steven J Long wrote: > Duncan wrote: > >> Wow, joke or not, this is the kind of thing that makes me glad I don't do >> IRC. > Just to answer this quickly, as I think you're querying my earlier assertion > that gentoo IRC is a lot of fun? > > The real point is that on IRC you can just type: /ignore asshat > and you never know that person exists unless someone else is talking to him. > That makes IRC in general a LOT easier to deal with than the ML. > > WRT paludis trolling, every year or so there's another couple of devs who > get drawn into that circle. They usually end up a lot more embittered, and > never as friendly as they used to be, ime. I've personally seen three guys > I rated, and used to chat with, go through that process. In any > event, /ignore makes #gentoo-* IRC bearable for me at worst, and > more often it's a lot of fun. Er, for the old school folks, let me introduce procmail; and for the new school folks, let me introduce gmail filters. It turns out you can filter in email too ;) > > -- > #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) > > >
[gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections - < 44 hours left to vote
Hello. This is a remainder that the voting for this Council's election will end at 23:59:59 UTC June 30rd - which means in less than 44 hours. At the moment, we have 101 casted votes which means ~ 41% of attendance. If you haven't voted yet, please hurry to your booth located at woodpecker. You can check more info about this election in the election's page[1]. Quick voting helper: $ votify --new council200906 $ $(editor) .ballot-council200906 $ votify --verify council200906 $ votify --submit council200906 [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council-200906-nominees.xml -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
ndrew D Kirch wrote: > Petteri Räty wrote: >> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> > I move that we elect George W Bush and Ciaran McCreesh Council Members > For Life. > Are these people serious? > > Andrew Andrew, I've chosen to reply to this particular mail, but this applies to your other mails in this thread. I think we've understood by now your view point, so there's no need to fill our mailboxes with more mails. Also, please avoid such non-sense as the above Everyone else, unless you have a new and relevant point about this discussion that hasn't been addressed yet and that you feel must really be put forth, please make an effort and refrain from pressing the "send" button. I would also like to recall everyone that any issues about Gentoo rules or behaviour of developers or users, should follow procedures and the discussion in this ml, although might provide an individual a sense of "cleansing of the soul", won't activate those procedures. Thank you. -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Petteri Räty wrote: > Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530 >>> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council) >>> Please point to the rule that says that a non-developer cannot be on >>> the Council, and please point to the rule that says that a Council >>> member cannot appoint a non-developer as their proxy. I see no mention >>> of either in GLEP 39, which only restricts voting of Council members to >>> developers, and only restricts proxies to not having one person with >>> multiple votes. >>> >>> >> Oh so you'll argue semantics now? The spirit of the rule is >> excessively clear. No non-gentoo-developer can be a member of council >> -- permanent, temporary, or proxy. >> >> If a council member can't find a gentoo developer to be their proxy, >> that says a lot about the council member. >> >> In any case, discussing this with you is completely m00t given my past >> experiences with discussions with you. >> >> >> -- >> ~Nirbheek Chauhan >> >> > > Actually, please read GLEP 39 and you will see that it doesn't restrict > council members to developers only. Basically under the current rules I > think it's technically right to be proxied by anyone. If you don't think > being proxied by non developers is wise, don't vote for those council > members next time. If we want to restrict the council to developers > only, we should think about modifying GLEP 39 (which should be done via > a vote among developers as that's they way 39 was agreed upon). > > Regards, > Petteri > > I move that we elect George W Bush and Ciaran McCreesh Council Members For Life. Are these people serious? Andrew
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Benny Pedersen wrote: > On Fri, June 26, 2009 03:13, Andrew D Kirch wrote: > >> Please be quiet. >> > > why ?, maillists is imho made to be used in non silent mode else one could > aswell argue to close it down > > Mailing lists he's been booted from twice for astroturfing and abuse. Andrew
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:04:14 +0530 > Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > The spirit and the letter of the rules are clear: the electorate can > vote in whoever they want, and council members can appoint whoever they > want so long as no-one has multiple votes at any given meaning. GLEP 39 > is very clear and explicit about all the restrictions. > > No one, and I mean no one (other than dev-zero apparently) wants you voting on anything. If your ties to GLEP's 54/55 are not sufficient to cause you a conflict of interests then your ties to exherbo do. I would not _ever_ be able to accept a proxy offer in good conscience because of my work on Funtoo. Your lack of integrity, followed by your bellicose attitude simply astounds me. dev-zero should not have offered, and I think there needs to be a discussion as to why he did. Ciaran, you should not EVER have accepted it. The council was right in throwing it out. This isn't hard, we don't need a whole new set of rules and amendments to glep 39, we need developers and participants with common sense. Your behavior disgusts me (though I can point out that this is a continuous problem rather than simply contained in this one incident.) Andrew D Kirch Funtoo
[gentoo-dev] Gentoo stats server/client @ 2009-06-29
I more or less took a week off GSoC for LinuxTag. It gave me the chance to further spread the ideas behind Gentoo (and also PackageMap) a bit. I think that was worth not producing any code during the time. There is lots of things to do, I'm back at it. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections
Duncan wrote: > Dale posted 4a47f8e3.8070...@gmail.com, excerpted > below, on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:12:35 -0500: > > >> As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask. Why is that EVERYONE on the >> council must be there or have someone there to represent them? Would >> Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? >> > > I believe the fear is in ultimately having a very small group of people > (say 1-3) vote in something agreed among themselves, that the rest of the > community doesn't agree with. Gentoo devs tend to be a rather > independent lot, and they don't want that risk. That's the reason the > council is seven members instead of say, five or three, as well. With a > three person council it's really easy to get just two acting in cahoots, > and with five, getting a third person isn't that much harder. A seven > member council means in ordered for something to pass, at least four > members must agree, and there's a lot of developers for whom that's > simply the minimum number they can trust to make a reasonable decision. > > >From that viewpoint, if anyone's absent without proxy, it lowers the > "safe" level dramatically, because it's just too easy to persuade one or > two other folks to vote with you, even if they don't share your ulterior > motive. So the idea is to keep the number of votes to seven, so the > number necessary for a majority is always a reasonably safe four. > That makes sense so what about this theory? A vote can only happen if a certain number, say five or six, is in attendance. That would end up with there being a majority vote but by more than 3 people. What you say is very true. I read about a city council that met and voted with all the opposing side not being told it was going to happen at all. Needless to say, they got their way. We all know how hard it is to take something back once it is done. > >> I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a >> developer. If it is not that way now, it should be changed. I been >> using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy. I >> would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote. >> > > I agree. If I read GLEP 39 correctly, however, the reason it wasn't > required that all council members be devs is because they'd be council > members by virtue of being voted in by devs (being a dev is a requirement > to vote). Thus, if a majority of voting devs voted in a Gentoo-non-dev, > presumably they'd be expressing explicit trust in that non-dev to do the > right thing. > > Of course, the same doesn't apply to proxies, who are single-person > designated by the to-be-absent council member. Thus, the safety margin > doesn't exist there, they were NOT approved by the voting devs as a > whole, or even the council as a whole, and it's certainly a reasonable > argument that because of that, they should at least be devs. > > However, see my recent post proposing designated proxies, taking the job > for the full council term of a year. They could either be voted in as > running mates along with the (voting) council, or designated and approved > as the first order of business of the new council. (Since voting is > already underway for the new council, it'd have to be designated and > approved, this year, with the running mate idea perhaps next year if > thought good.) > > That'd eliminate both the unprepared proxy still trying to get up to > speed on what he's supposed to be voting on, as they'd presumably be as > prepared as would the regular voting council member, AND the problem of > non-dev as proxy, since they'd at minimum have been approved by the > council as a whole, if not voted in, in the same council vote as the > (voting) council itself. > > I see the point you are making. It seems to me that either proxies need to end or they need to be "running mates" as you put it. Then they would have to be devs to be "voted" in as proxies which would solve the whole issue. BTW, I'm sort of a conspiracy theorist. We have a family lawyer that does our legal stuff and he has learned the hard way to look at every single angle that is even remotely possible. I got that trait from my Mom. It's also what I hate about our government here. They pass laws and have not freaking idea what it says and it is so ambiguous that you can read into it whatever you like. Makes it hard on the Judges and the people since we never know what way the Judges will rule. It's a crap shoot basically. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2009-06-28 23h59 UTC
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2009-06-28 23h59 UTC. Removals: dev-perl/Module-CoreList2009-06-23 08:40:29 tove Additions: dev-perl/B-Hooks-Parser 2009-06-23 07:33:52 robbat2 dev-perl/B-OPCheck 2009-06-23 07:34:08 robbat2 dev-perl/B-Utils2009-06-23 07:34:23 robbat2 dev-perl/Class-Accessor-Grouped 2009-06-23 07:34:38 robbat2 dev-perl/Class-Base 2009-06-23 07:34:53 robbat2 dev-perl/Class-C3-Componentised 2009-06-23 07:35:09 robbat2 dev-perl/Config-Any 2009-06-23 07:35:25 robbat2 dev-perl/Contextual-Return 2009-06-23 07:35:41 robbat2 dev-perl/DBICx-TestDatabase 2009-06-23 07:35:57 robbat2 dev-perl/DBIx-Class 2009-06-23 07:36:13 robbat2 dev-perl/DBIx-Class-DynamicDefault 2009-06-23 07:36:29 robbat2 dev-perl/DBIx-Class-InflateColumn-Boolean 2009-06-23 07:36:44 robbat2 dev-perl/DBIx-Class-InflateColumn-IP2009-06-23 07:37:00 robbat2 dev-perl/DBIx-Class-InflateColumn-Object-Enum 2009-06-23 07:37:15 robbat2 dev-perl/DBIx-Class-UserStamp 2009-06-23 07:37:31 robbat2 dev-perl/Data-Dump-Streamer 2009-06-23 07:37:46 robbat2 dev-perl/Data-Page 2009-06-23 07:38:01 robbat2 dev-perl/DateTime-HiRes 2009-06-23 07:38:16 robbat2 dev-perl/Devel-Caller 2009-06-23 07:38:32 robbat2 dev-perl/Devel-Declare 2009-06-23 07:38:47 robbat2 dev-perl/Devel-LexAlias 2009-06-23 07:39:02 robbat2 dev-perl/Devel-REPL 2009-06-23 07:39:18 robbat2 dev-perl/Exception-Base 2009-06-23 07:39:34 robbat2 dev-perl/Exception-Died 2009-06-23 07:39:50 robbat2 dev-perl/Exception-System 2009-06-23 07:40:06 robbat2 dev-perl/Exception-Warning 2009-06-23 07:40:21 robbat2 dev-perl/FCGI-ProcManager 2009-06-23 07:40:37 robbat2 dev-perl/Fatal-Exception2009-06-23 07:40:53 robbat2 dev-perl/File-Stat-Moose2009-06-23 07:41:09 robbat2 dev-perl/Getopt-Long-Descriptive2009-06-23 07:41:24 robbat2 dev-perl/IO-Capture 2009-06-23 07:41:39 robbat2 dev-perl/IO-Moose 2009-06-23 07:41:55 robbat2 dev-perl/JSON-Any 2009-06-23 07:42:10 robbat2 dev-perl/Lexical-Persistence2009-06-23 07:42:26 robbat2 dev-perl/Lingua-EN-NameCase 2009-06-23 07:42:42 robbat2 dev-perl/Module-CoreList2009-06-23 07:42:58 robbat2 dev-perl/Module-Find2009-06-23 07:43:13 robbat2 dev-perl/Module-Install 2009-06-23 07:43:29 robbat2 dev-perl/Module-ScanDeps2009-06-23 07:43:45 robbat2 dev-perl/MooseX-Getopt 2009-06-23 07:44:01 robbat2 dev-perl/MooseX-GlobRef 2009-06-23 07:44:16 robbat2 dev-perl/MooseX-Object-Pluggable2009-06-23 07:44:32 robbat2 dev-perl/Object-Enum2009-06-23 07:44:48 robbat2 dev-perl/POE-API-Peek 2009-06-23 07:45:04 robbat2 dev-perl/POE-Component-IKC 2009-06-23 07:45:20 robbat2 dev-perl/POE-Component-PreforkDispatch 2009-06-23 07:45:36 robbat2 dev-perl/Parse-CPAN-Meta2009-06-23 07:45:52 robbat2 dev-perl/SQL-Translator 2009-06-23 07:46:08 robbat2 dev-perl/Taint-Runtime 2009-06-23 07:46:23 robbat2 dev-perl/Test-Assert2009-06-23 07:46:39 robbat2 dev-perl/Test-Distribution 2009-06-23 07:46:55 robbat2 dev-perl/Test-Unit-Lite 2009-06-23 07:47:11 robbat2 dev-perl/YAML-Tiny 2009-06-23 07:47:29 robbat2 dev-perl/constant-boolean 2009-06-23 07:47:58 robbat2 dev-perl/maybe 2009-06-23 07:48:14 robbat2 dev-perl/parent 2009-06-23 07:48:29 robbat2 dev-perl/self 2009-06-23 07:48:45 robbat2 perl-core/Module-CoreList 2009-06-23 08:03:42 tove virtual/perl-Module-CoreList2009-06-23 08:04:46 tove dev-python/beanstalkc 2009-06-2
[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections
Dale posted 4a47f8e3.8070...@gmail.com, excerpted below, on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:12:35 -0500: > As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask. Why is that EVERYONE on the > council must be there or have someone there to represent them? Would > Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? I believe the fear is in ultimately having a very small group of people (say 1-3) vote in something agreed among themselves, that the rest of the community doesn't agree with. Gentoo devs tend to be a rather independent lot, and they don't want that risk. That's the reason the council is seven members instead of say, five or three, as well. With a three person council it's really easy to get just two acting in cahoots, and with five, getting a third person isn't that much harder. A seven member council means in ordered for something to pass, at least four members must agree, and there's a lot of developers for whom that's simply the minimum number they can trust to make a reasonable decision. >From that viewpoint, if anyone's absent without proxy, it lowers the "safe" level dramatically, because it's just too easy to persuade one or two other folks to vote with you, even if they don't share your ulterior motive. So the idea is to keep the number of votes to seven, so the number necessary for a majority is always a reasonably safe four. > I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a > developer. If it is not that way now, it should be changed. I been > using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy. I > would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote. I agree. If I read GLEP 39 correctly, however, the reason it wasn't required that all council members be devs is because they'd be council members by virtue of being voted in by devs (being a dev is a requirement to vote). Thus, if a majority of voting devs voted in a Gentoo-non-dev, presumably they'd be expressing explicit trust in that non-dev to do the right thing. Of course, the same doesn't apply to proxies, who are single-person designated by the to-be-absent council member. Thus, the safety margin doesn't exist there, they were NOT approved by the voting devs as a whole, or even the council as a whole, and it's certainly a reasonable argument that because of that, they should at least be devs. However, see my recent post proposing designated proxies, taking the job for the full council term of a year. They could either be voted in as running mates along with the (voting) council, or designated and approved as the first order of business of the new council. (Since voting is already underway for the new council, it'd have to be designated and approved, this year, with the running mate idea perhaps next year if thought good.) That'd eliminate both the unprepared proxy still trying to get up to speed on what he's supposed to be voting on, as they'd presumably be as prepared as would the regular voting council member, AND the problem of non-dev as proxy, since they'd at minimum have been approved by the council as a whole, if not voted in, in the same council vote as the (voting) council itself. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections
Ferris McCormick posted 20090628221421.1c9f8...@anaconda.krait.us, excerpted below, on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:14:21 +: >> Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is >> fatally flawed. >> >> 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member >> being proxied is never made public. >> > This is a problem. Any time a council member requires a proxy, that > should be published immediately (including who the proxy is). Not > possible for things coming up at the last minute, of course. Extending that, what about having, at least for a first proxy level, a "designated proxy"? Each council member would choose a proxy at the beginning of their term, or even as a running mate if taken that far. Designated proxies would then be effectively council members with observer status -- no voting power -- unless their designated member was absent. Following the logic, designated proxies /could/ (IOW, I'm not sure it is practical to take it this far) be held to the same general council standards, slacker marks for non-attendance, etc, and in otherwise comment-closed sessions would have voice -- they just wouldn't have the vote unless their designated voting council member was absent. If the proxy was chosen at the beginning of the term (not as a running mate), the first order of business of the first meeting of a new council would be approving the table of proxies. Either way, it would basically eliminate the question of whether a council member or designated proxy must be a dev or not, because either they'd have been voted in with that taken into account, or the council would have approved the designated proxies at the first meeting. (I'd suggest, for fairness and efficiency, the first approval vote be held on the entire table of proxies, not individually. If that vote fails, then go the individual route. I'm not sure about what to do if a voting member doesn't make the first meeting; perhaps give the presumed proxy the vote for that first meeting, even if it means he's voting on approving himself?) Now, practically speaking, if this is instituted, since we'd be effectively doubling the number of people on council (just not the number of votes), it may be useful to reduce the number of voting members a bit. It would in fact be possible to have it an even number, as well, in which case, if there was a tie, the designated proxies could vote as well, with their combined votes taken as a single tie override. (If the number of voting members were even, however, so would be the number of proxies, thus leading to the possibility of a tie vote there as well. I'd suggest that a wise policy in that case would be that the matter is voted down, as there's simply not enough consensus on the matter yet. If desired, the issue could be brought up again in say... six months, thus giving each council two chances at a vote, without locking it up on the same issue for months at a time. Alternatively, the first runner(s)-up could be the tie-breaker, and they'd need observer status as well, in ordered to be in the loop enough to cast that vote.) FWIW, it's seven council members now. Perhaps five would work, yielding ten, with the designated proxies as observers. Even four, using the tie breaking rules above, making it 8 including designated proxies. I'd hate to see it go below four as that gets too easy for abuse, but 4-5 should work. Now if the running mate idea was implemented, there'd be another option as well. Gentoo could continue the policy of runner-up taking the vacancy if one opens (and the runner-up isn't reopen_nominations), or it could switch to the designated proxy aka running mate taking the position. Of course, in the latter case, the running mate would now need to select a proxy, which would then be handled using the approval process mentioned above. (In the former case, the runner-up would have already had a running mate.) If the running mates idea is chosen, a rule could be instituted that there's no person appearing at both voting member and running mate (on another ticket), or it could be that a first person on one ticket could be the running mate on another, but a person could only appear once in each spot. (The latter would presumably end up with pair-tickets, where the top person switches off, tho that wouldn't be a given. In the case of pair-tickets, choosing the one would automatically eliminate the other from further consideration, thereby eliminating the case of two voting council members being each others designated proxy, as well. All this would eliminate the question of whether proxies are up to speed on a given issue, or the briefing they had been given, etc, at least for the first level of proxy, which would now be observer members unless their primary was absent, with the usual expectation and obligation of council members to follow the issues brought before the council. Of course,
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Roy Bamford wrote: > > > 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. > I'm just picking a random message so no fingers being pointed here. As a long time Gentoo user, I have to ask. Why is that EVERYONE on the council must be there or have someone there to represent them? Would Gentoo come to a end if one person or even two people were not present? I do agree that if a proxy is going to be used, they should be a developer. If it is not that way now, it should be changed. I been using Gentoo for years and wouldn't even consider serving as a proxy. I would certainly not want to be a tie breaker on a vote. As a American that sees his own country's government getting out of control, never count on common sense. Elected people rarely have any. If they do during the election, it disappears after taking their position. I think the vast majority of people here have seen that over the years. My $0.02 worth. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
-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 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-
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100 Roy Bamford wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2009.06.28 10:00, Tiziano Müller wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot > > wrote: > > > > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been > > booted > > > > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes > > > > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that > > position. > > > > > > As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a > > > non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to > > Tiziano, > > > and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his > > > proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to > > > experiment. > > Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be > > a > > dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me > > this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to > > accept > > him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting. > > > [snip] > > -- > > Tiziano Müller > > Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member > > Areas of responsibility: > > Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor > > E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org > > GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 > > > > Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is > fatally flawed. > > 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member > being proxied is never made public. > This is a problem. Any time a council member requires a proxy, that should be published immediately (including who the proxy is). Not possible for things coming up at the last minute, of course. > 2. Its never clear if the proxy is voting as instructed by the council > member or as they see fit at the time. > > 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. > - -- > Regards, > > Roy Bamford > (NeddySeagoon) a member of > gentoo-ops > forum-mods > treecleaners > trustees > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpHjtYACgkQTE4/y7nJvavn9gCgt5tw0IaT8GRdh2w0nY+RskZF > H2YAoMgphYWUOp4bVMl8TWp0Qy1nTzjI > =aR8L > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > Regards, Ferris - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpH60gACgkQQa6M3+I///eSvgCeMx/4WsoLHkIRv7DuH5iRl1/z H4AAoIaOejm13uYxbNcqesyJSKcIh8Ms =Fm7s -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2009, 20:46 +0100 schrieb George Prowse: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100 > > George Prowse wrote: > >> > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- > >> > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council > >> > meeting. > >> > >> If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him > >> to speak on the board of a hospital > > > > Coming from you, George, that's rather rich... Also, I would like to > > remind you that the Council's decision was everything to do with the > > rules not allowing a non-developer to proxy (a claim which has yet to > > be substantiated), and nothing to do with the attempts of a small number > > of malcontents that anything involving me, Paludis or Exherbo is so > > amazingly evil that it must be entirely ignored. > > > I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list will > endear yourself to everyone. > > Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you > would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 > years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a > developer again. > > Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is the > wrong way Please read my mail at http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_1c0cf45c2d4619441c964163b787a11e.xml for that. -- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:46:27 +0100 George Prowse wrote: I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list will endear yourself to everyone. Uh, isn't that exactly what you're doing? Nope, I never mentioned anything personal about you, in fact I can't remember mentioning your name at all. Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a developer again. Why? I'm interested in getting things done, not in jumping through arbitrary hoops and starting yet another silly Gentoo politics flamewar. You choose to be in these flamewars. As I stated, if you really cared then at some time since your exclusion you would have worked on Gentoo and kept your nose clean, people would have had no choice but to accept you had noting but Gentoo's best interest at heart. Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is the wrong way and spending the last 4 years doing the wrong thing means that you have done nothing to warrant you being included in not only Gentoo but it's heirachy (and this is without mentioning your trolling on the lists and your banning from the forums). I'm not trying to get into Gentoo by proxy at all. I shall remind you that this was Tiziano's request and decision, not mine, and that I was merely helping Gentoo out by carrying out a request from a Council member. You're not stupid, you knew exactly what would happen and you let all the flames come instead of being humble and suggesting that it wasn't the best idea. If you succeed are you going to invite Patrick and Plasmaroo to join the exherbo "council"? That's not my decision. I don't have anything to do with the running of Exherbo. However, if Patrick or Plasmaroo have useful contributions for Exherbo, I would be happy to ensure that those contributions get applied. Don't take that too literally, it was only meant as an example. Again, this is not about me or Exherbo. It's about the Council's unsubstantiated claim that the rules prohibit a Council member from selecting a non-developer as a proxy. If you select a non-developer as a proxy then it degrades what it means to be a developer. Would you be happy if you local MP got his granny to vote in parliament when he was on holiday?
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:46:27 +0100 George Prowse wrote: > I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list > will endear yourself to everyone. Uh, isn't that exactly what you're doing? > Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you > would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 > years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a > developer again. Why? I'm interested in getting things done, not in jumping through arbitrary hoops and starting yet another silly Gentoo politics flamewar. > Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is > the wrong way and spending the last 4 years doing the wrong thing > means that you have done nothing to warrant you being included in not > only Gentoo but it's heirachy (and this is without mentioning your > trolling on the lists and your banning from the forums). I'm not trying to get into Gentoo by proxy at all. I shall remind you that this was Tiziano's request and decision, not mine, and that I was merely helping Gentoo out by carrying out a request from a Council member. > If you succeed are you going to invite Patrick and Plasmaroo to join > the exherbo "council"? That's not my decision. I don't have anything to do with the running of Exherbo. However, if Patrick or Plasmaroo have useful contributions for Exherbo, I would be happy to ensure that those contributions get applied. Again, this is not about me or Exherbo. It's about the Council's unsubstantiated claim that the rules prohibit a Council member from selecting a non-developer as a proxy. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100 George Prowse wrote: > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council > meeting. If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him to speak on the board of a hospital Coming from you, George, that's rather rich... Also, I would like to remind you that the Council's decision was everything to do with the rules not allowing a non-developer to proxy (a claim which has yet to be substantiated), and nothing to do with the attempts of a small number of malcontents that anything involving me, Paludis or Exherbo is so amazingly evil that it must be entirely ignored. I'm sure getting personal about subjects on a Gentoo mailing list will endear yourself to everyone. Thinking logically for a second, if you really cared about Gentoo you would have tried your best to be good and nice in the... I dunno, 4 years(?) since your ejection and then worked your way up to being a developer again. Trying to get into Gentoo by proxy (heh, see what I did there?) is the wrong way and spending the last 4 years doing the wrong thing means that you have done nothing to warrant you being included in not only Gentoo but it's heirachy (and this is without mentioning your trolling on the lists and your banning from the forums). If you succeed are you going to invite Patrick and Plasmaroo to join the exherbo "council"?
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100 George Prowse wrote: > > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- > > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council > > meeting. > > If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him > to speak on the board of a hospital Coming from you, George, that's rather rich... Also, I would like to remind you that the Council's decision was everything to do with the rules not allowing a non-developer to proxy (a claim which has yet to be substantiated), and nothing to do with the attempts of a small number of malcontents that anything involving me, Paludis or Exherbo is so amazingly evil that it must be entirely ignored. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Alistair Bush wrote: As our closest relative ( of any distro ) You mean apart from all the other Gentoo based distros?
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Wulf C. Krueger wrote: I think it would be in the best interest of both Exherbo and Gentoo to elect gentoofan23, betelgeuse, dev-zero, peper, calchan and dertobi123 to the Gentoo Council. Why is Exherbo's interests anything to do with Gentoo's? Does this happen with Sabayon or SystemRescueCd or any other Gentoo-based distro? > This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- > zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council > meeting. If a doctor loses his right to practice medicine you dont allow him to speak on the board of a hospital
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2009, 21:35 +0530 schrieb Nirbheek Chauhan: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: > > 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. > > > > I would like to make a stand for more usage of common sense and > "wisdom" in interpretation of rules. It more often than not makes for > more sensible and useful decisions. Well, Gentoo became (or always was) a multi-cultural project and what I see is that common sense really depends on one's cultural background. Therefore I'd say it doesn't hurt to just write something down in case of ambiguity. > > To this end, I advocate the following TED talk: > http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html > > From Donnie's twitter status[1] from a while back, I take it he would > agree as well. > > > 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. > > > > This is an interesting point that I doubt many here would have thought of. > > > 1. http://twitter.com/dberkholz/status/2345098446 -- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2009, 16:40 +0100 schrieb Roy Bamford: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2009.06.28 10:00, Tiziano Müller wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot > > wrote: > > > > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been > > booted > > > > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes > > > > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that > > position. > > > > > > As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a > > > non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to > > Tiziano, > > > and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his > > > proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to > > > experiment. > > Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be > > a > > dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me > > this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to > > accept > > him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting. > > > [snip] > > -- > > Tiziano Müller > > Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member > > Areas of responsibility: > > Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor > > E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org > > GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 > > > > Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is > fatally flawed. As I stated in at least one mail before (and in countless discussions on IRC): I'd like to see the proxy-concept being removed since it is flawed as you point out below and replaced with something like "a council member may miss N meetings with M of them without prior notice" And then remove that slacker mark as well and just say: "if you miss more than those N meetings or miss M meetings without prior notice you get kicked". And for those who like the slacker mark to see who has missed a lot of meetings or missed meetings repeatedly we could have a statistics summary on proj/en/council with the number of missed meetings per member. Cheers, Tiziano > 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member > being proxied is never made public. > > 2. Its never clear if the proxy is voting as instructed by the council > member or as they see fit at the time. > > 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? > > 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. > > 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. > > Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world > > - -- > Regards, > > Roy Bamford > (NeddySeagoon) a member of > gentoo-ops > forum-mods > treecleaners > trustees > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpHjtYACgkQTE4/y7nJvavn9gCgt5tw0IaT8GRdh2w0nY+RskZF > H2YAoMgphYWUOp4bVMl8TWp0Qy1nTzjI > =aR8L > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > -- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: > 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. > I would like to make a stand for more usage of common sense and "wisdom" in interpretation of rules. It more often than not makes for more sensible and useful decisions. To this end, I advocate the following TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html >From Donnie's twitter status[1] from a while back, I take it he would agree as well. > 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. > This is an interesting point that I doubt many here would have thought of. 1. http://twitter.com/dberkholz/status/2345098446 -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.06.28 10:00, Tiziano Müller wrote: > Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot > wrote: > > > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been > booted > > > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes > > > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that > position. > > > > As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a > > non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to > Tiziano, > > and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his > > proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to > > experiment. > Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be > a > dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me > this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to > accept > him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting. > [snip] > -- > Tiziano Müller > Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member > Areas of responsibility: > Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor > E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org > GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 > Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is fatally flawed. 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member being proxied is never made public. 2. Its never clear if the proxy is voting as instructed by the council member or as they see fit at the time. 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? 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. 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. Note: Other trustees may have a different view of the world - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpHjtYACgkQTE4/y7nJvavn9gCgt5tw0IaT8GRdh2w0nY+RskZF H2YAoMgphYWUOp4bVMl8TWp0Qy1nTzjI =aR8L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs
> Following packages are looking for new maintainers: > > - app-laptop/omnibook - not much work, I don't have a laptop requiring I am using it for my laptop so I will take it Thanks -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Qt/Sunrise/Sound] Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: > Thomas Anderson wrote: > > > Steven J Long wrote: > >> Denis Dupeyron wrote: > >> > >> > This list is for technical discussions only. > >> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not > >> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 > >> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. > >> > > > > Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have > > had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). > > Would you please stop that? > > > I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the > benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my > interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in > a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to > be. There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, I was referring to: "This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie." "And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking." <--- Not exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel. "You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC." "Nice summaries though." Not exactly an insult though it was probably sarcastic. And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: "Clearly you are fairly immature" and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both unsubstantiated and untrue). And other in general attitude problems against me. > >> > Also, public mailing-lists > >> > are not for discussing your personal issues. > >> > > >> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a > >> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. > > > > The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the > > reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly > > straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being > > called a 'lie') in that summary > > You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have > considered my point of view very much. So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into something I merely "haven't" considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my image of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in the wrong. > > I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your > > remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time > > and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. > > > You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to > maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the > politicking, you didn't have in any case. Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more impartial so I can improve my process. > As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I > appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else > puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about it being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial. > >> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get > >> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. > > > > See above, especially the part saying "for what he called". > >> > I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo > devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means > disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads > like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran > actually behaves than a direct attack on him. By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this thread. Think it's fair? > >> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're > >> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, > >> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the > >> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and > >> not an issue of borked process. > > > > I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which > > is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this > > problem. > > > Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He > raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself. Well c
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs
On Sunday 28 June 2009 14:50:05 Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: > Following packages are looking for new maintainers: > > - app-laptop/omnibook - not much work, I don't have a laptop requiring > this - kde-misc/kdmtheme - I hope it will go away with KDE 3.5.x - kde > team? - sys-power/hibernate-script - 2 open bugs, rare releases yes, kde team will take kdmtheme -- Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) Gentoo KDE/Qt Team
[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs
Following packages are looking for new maintainers: - app-laptop/omnibook - not much work, I don't have a laptop requiring this - kde-misc/kdmtheme - I hope it will go away with KDE 3.5.x - kde team? - sys-power/hibernate-script - 2 open bugs, rare releases -- Krzysiek Pawlik key id: 0xBC51 desktop-misc, java, apache, ppc, vim, kernel, python... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On 11:41 Fri 26 Jun , Richard Freeman wrote: > However, those who have questioned the wisdom of cirianm as a proxy do > have a point. Technical knowledge alone is not the critiera of a > council member. One needs to be able to build consensus - not that we > need to be strangled by consensus, but we can't afford to rule by edict > either. > > I'm happy that everybody seems to be getting along better, but council > leadership requires maturity, and maturity is reflected by how people > behave over the long haul. Cirianm's best bet to get accepted by the > gentoo devs is to just start working with them - if he works positively > with enough different people (especially those with different opinions) > he'll have no trouble gaining their support. However, that is something > that can take months or years - not weeks to a few months. I might be > willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that is just me. I'm > not so sure I'd be eager to have him be a proxy if I were on the > council. Sure, I'd be happy to yield my floor time to him if I thought > he had something worth listening to, but a proxy is more than just a > platform to talk - any mailing list subscriber already has that. Agreed. -- Zhang, Le Gentoo/Loongson Developer http://zhangle.is-a-geek.org 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973 pgpDo0wS2P2Fi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Am Freitag, den 26.06.2009, 07:15 -0600 schrieb Denis Dupeyron: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > > To appoint as proxy for a council meeting someone who has been booted > > from Gentoo is a clear lapse of judgement, and would in my eyes > > disqualify the involved council member from functioning in that position. > > As Petteri noted it's not obvious that GLEP39 disallows choosing a > non-dev as proxy for a council meeting. I haven't talked to Tiziano, > and I don't know what he had in mind when he chose ciaranm as his > proxy, but I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to > experiment. Well, it was surely not an experiment to see whether someone must be a dev or not to be a proxy. Based on GLEP 39 it was fairly clear to me this must not be the case and I at least expected the council to accept him (or any other non-dev) at least for that meeting. When I had to choose a proxy I basically went through the list of people I worked together and from which I know their opinions and they know mine. That would have been: dertobi123 and maekke, one a council member already, the other one unavailable at the time I looked for a proxy. Then there was tanderson who wasn't sure whether he has to proxy for another council member already and ciaranm who was present in most meetings, knows my opinion, can distinguish between his opinion and mine and worked on EAPI-3. I'm sorry when I offended some council members and other developers with that decision but guessing from the last discussions on #-council between Ciaran and other council members I really didn't expect such an animosity. For the claim that Exherbo-people undercut Gentoo: I don't care about what someone is doing in their freetime. I would also accept an Ubuntu dev, a Red Hat developer, drobbins or even Bill Gates as a council member if they'd invest enough time in Gentoo. I personally don't care about Exherbo, I'm neither a dev nor a user and the same thing goes for Funtoo. If nothing bad happens I will organize the booth again at the next Open Expo in September (hopefully together with dertobi123 and maekke), investing my personal time and money again to show people what Gentoo is about and I will also continue to promote Gentoo/Prefix at the University (where I'm working on a large installation on a big server) and I will continue to use Gentoo for an Embedded Project with hopefully over 3000 deployed systems within the next two years. Furthermore I only care partially about someones past. People change all the time and they deserve more than one chance. If I would show the same averseness to some devs I had fights with in the past as people do to Ciaran I couldn't work with them now. > And experiments sometimes succeed, or sometimes they fail, > but they often teach you something. I wouldn't be as fast as you to > remove Tiziano from the list of people I'd vote for. Thanks :) -- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
