Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 23:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: -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 meant that the council can reverse itself. I did not intend to imply any trustee action --- I intended to imply that council should be able to see when they had made an error of judgment. 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. Fair enough. But I don't think such a meeting should ever happen. Surely, council can reschedule a meeting if they see this coming up. :) 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- Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) fmc...@gentoo.org Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:12 -0500, Dale wrote: 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? All that's required is a quorum (4 out of 7) to hold a meeting. 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 :-) :-) Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) fmc...@gentoo.org Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On E, 2009-06-29 at 12:32 +, Ferris McCormick wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:12 -0500, Dale wrote: 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? All that's required is a quorum (4 out of 7) to hold a meeting. And when you have one less, it apparently immediately means a new council election. I guess that's one reason these days to always appoint proxies. The other is otherwise getting a missed meeting record, then a slacker mark and then a boot. And then there's the long tradition of always when a meeting un-attendance is foreseen a proxy getting appointed. I guess the new council can think about this, but a) time spent on figuring out such rules and whatnot to have to deal with unfortunately happening corner cases is time better spent on getting actual Gentoo improving done b) I don't think the council itself should be having so much to do with any such figuring out c) there are far bigger reaching restructuring ideas in the works for future proposals 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 :-) :-) Regards, Ferris -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 Grootyng...@gentoo.org 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
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
-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 Grootyng...@gentoo.org 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] 2009 Council Elections
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Roy Bamfordneddyseag...@gentoo.org 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
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 Grootyng...@gentoo.org 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
Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2009, 21:35 +0530 schrieb Nirbheek Chauhan: On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Roy Bamfordneddyseag...@gentoo.org 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
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
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
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100 George Prowse george.pro...@gmail.com 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
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:31:43 +0100 George Prowse george.pro...@gmail.com 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 20:46:27 +0100 George Prowse george.pro...@gmail.com 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 20:46:27 +0100 George Prowse george.pro...@gmail.com 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
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 george.pro...@gmail.com 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:40:00 +0100 Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org 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 Grootyng...@gentoo.org 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) fmc...@gentoo.org 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
-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-
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
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:04:14 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org 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
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
Petteri Räty wrote: Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org 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
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
[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
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 -- xpoint
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Alistair Bush ali_b...@gentoo.org wrote: Sorry to rain on your parade, but with ciaranm's consistent history, allowing him to participate in Gentoo's discussions itself is a privilege of patience on the part of the Gentoo community. I would believe that recent history would show the opposite. Recent history does not change the nature of a person, nor does it rebuild the bridges they have burnt. There seem to be a group of developers at which the mere mention of ciaranm results in setting them off. So you expect us to just ignore all his past problems and give him a fresh start everytime someone mentions him? Do you really expect us to not take a persons well-known history into account when dealing with them? This is at best unrealistic and at worst trollish. Regardless of the technical merits of a solution they seem more interested in just derailing anything that might have anything to do with ciaramn. What the hell does this discussion have to do with technical merits of any solution? Please don't attempt a validity by association[1]. I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past. But recently I haven't see anything. Having witnessed Ciaran playing nice for a while before getting back to vitriolic attacks several times before, I take all this with a record-shatteringly-massive grain of salt. I would like to see good behavior for much longer before bringing my guard down. I keep an open and forgiving mind, but not so much that my brains fall out and get eaten by zombies. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:50:22 +1200 Alistair Bush ali_b...@gentoo.org wrote: I would believe that recent history would show the opposite. There seem to be a group of developers at which the mere mention of ciaranm results in setting them off. Regardless of the technical merits of a solution they seem more interested in just derailing anything that might have anything to do with ciaramn. Correct. When he was booted off the project the last time, I breathed again and picked up my waning interest in Gentoo and it has thrived since. I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past. But recently I haven't see anything. I for one hope that this continues and that other members of the community take a look at themselves before spouting about the evils of ciaramn. I have come to know Ciaran as an elitist little twerp and he is one of a few people in the world I wouldn't want to meet, or wouldn't know what I'd do to if I did meet him. It's really that bad, yes. The man brought it all on himself for the nasty things he did in the past and should publicly apologise for each and every time he offended someone in a web-e-vised 20 hour sorry-a-thon before[1] he is allowed back to do more than voice his opinion on Gentoo-held media. Thank you kindly, jer [1] Which isn't going to happen.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org 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 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:04:14 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: 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. 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. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
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 [...] to the Gentoo Council. I would think the only thing that matters is the best interest of Gentoo. This is after all the _Gentoo_ Council we're speaking of, not a body that is concerned with non-Gentoo matters. All of them [...] would be ideal candidates to get the best of both distros and deepen a cooperation and common understanding between both. In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels. This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting. 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. While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone. I would hope so. The people we elect to the council should concentrate on Gentoo, otherwise they'd have a conflict of interest. Cheers, Ben
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben de Grootyng...@gentoo.org 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. 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. Denis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Denis Dupeyron wrote: I'd be ready to believe part of it was that he wanted to experiment. And experiments sometimes succeed, or sometimes they fail, Well, experimentation is OK (and I would encourage it for many things), but I'm not sure I'd agree that experimentally giving someone council powers for a even one meeting is wise, unless you are very sure that it will not result in adverse decisions being made. I'd rather see experimentation done in other, less risky ways. For what it's worth, I'd vote to have it codified that council members and proxies need to be Gentoo devs (or at least a member of the project in some capacity). To me, it is a good minimum requirement, at least. -Joe
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Ben de Groot wrote: I would think the only thing that matters is the best interest of Gentoo. This is after all the _Gentoo_ Council we're speaking of, not a body that is concerned with non-Gentoo matters. ++ In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels. Why silence what you can ignore? Also Exherbo is the most similar project we have to compare ourselves too. If drobbins had ignored freebsd where would we be now? We shouldn't ignore anything, debain, suse, fedora, etc, etc, etc all have something to contribute. Ignoring them because we don't like their members will only make Gentoo weaker. We should instead be looking at what they have done that we can use to improve gentoo. As our closest relative ( of any distro ) having Council members that have at least a basic understanding of what (and how) they are attempting to achieve is a good thing. The same goes for Sabayon. 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. I actually look forward to seeing how he goes. While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone. I would hope so. The people we elect to the council should concentrate on Gentoo, otherwise they'd have a conflict of interest. Maybe we should force Council members to disclose their involvement with other projects? You never know, we might have a ubuntu dev on the council :D Alistair.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 14:46 +0200, Ben de Groot wrote: Wulf C. Krueger wrote: I think it would be in the best interest of both Exherbo and Gentoo to elect [...] to the Gentoo Council. I would think the only thing that matters is the best interest of Gentoo. This is after all the _Gentoo_ Council we're speaking of, not a body that is concerned with non-Gentoo matters. All of them [...] would be ideal candidates to get the best of both distros and deepen a cooperation and common understanding between both. In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels. I think this works only if Gentoo can exist in a vacuum. And in my opinion it can't. An exchange of ideas among projects is good, and for Gentoo I suppose the council is the official driver. To me, that implies that council ignore other projects like Exherbo only to the detriment of Gentoo. (I believe we already have dual developers for Gentoo/Exherbo, but I haven't bothered to verify.) This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting. 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. While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone. I would hope so. The people we elect to the council should concentrate on Gentoo, otherwise they'd have a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest? How so. And like it or not, as best as I can tell GLEP39 is the ruling document for council, and it does not require council members or proxies to be gentoo developers. It might be reasonable to require they be members of a gentoo project, but as someone (Denis?) explained to me, Gentoo project members need not be developers. Anyone with something useful to contribute should be able to, but only developers should have commit access (actually, the trustees can request limited commit access to any Foundation trustee or officer, I believe). Cheers, Ben Flames not required, Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) fmc...@gentoo.org Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Ben de Groot wrote: In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels. Nobody needs to be silenced (unless they're litereally spamming the list - as close as cirianm comes to this his posts are at least relevant to the topic and even if I sometimes disagree with them and he could exercise restraint I don't think he should be banned). I suspect most devs just avoid the drama. I do echo the sentiment that the Gentoo council should be focused on Gentoo. Sure, nothing wrong with cooperating with other projects and learning from them. Certainly I don't want a not-invented-here attitude, and I think paludis has a lot to offer. 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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I suspect most devs just avoid the drama. ++ Less worrying, more working -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm/vim) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Wednesday, 24. June 2009 17:48:38 Doug Goldstein wrote: I wanted to take this time to encourage everyone who can vote in this year's council elections. This is your chance to affect the technical development for Gentoo for the coming year and I encourage you to take it. Cardoe said it very nicely and since he actively encouraged to vote for tanderson, I'd like to add a bit... 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. All of them have a good understanding of both Gentoo and Exherbo (no wonder with some of them working on Exherbo, too) and would be ideal candidates to get the best of both distros and deepen a cooperation and common understanding between both. This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting. While the other candidates certainly have great merits, they tend to only see one side and concentrate too much on Gentoo alone. May a great council be elected! Best regards, Wulf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org 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. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Wulf C. Krueger w...@mailstation.de wrote: between both. This strengthening bridge of understanding can be seen in dev- zero's move to appoint ciaranm as his proxy for today's council meeting. Sorry to rain on your parade, but with ciaranm's consistent history, allowing him to participate in Gentoo's discussions itself is a privilege of patience on the part of the Gentoo community. I would believe that recent history would show the opposite. There seem to be a group of developers at which the mere mention of ciaranm results in setting them off. Regardless of the technical merits of a solution they seem more interested in just derailing anything that might have anything to do with ciaramn. I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past. But recently I haven't see anything. I for one hope that this continues and that other members of the community take a look at themselves before spouting about the evils of ciaramn. Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council), and reflects badly on the candidate in question (dev-zero). Not shared by everyone. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
[gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Hello everyone, I wanted to take this time to encourage everyone who can vote in this year's council elections. This is your chance to affect the technical development for Gentoo for the coming year and I encourage you to take it. Voting is easy, just login to your account on dev.gentoo.org and perform the following steps: Quick voting helper: $ votify --new council200906 [1] $ $(editor) .ballot-council200906 [2] $ votify --verify council200906 [3] $ votify --submit council200906 [4] While I'm not running this year. I encourage people to consider gentoofan23 (tanderson on IRC). He's done an outstanding job helping the current council members and without him much of the council's progress would have stalled. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Thanks for the reminder, Doug. Make sure to also check everybody's manifesto here: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council-200906-nominees.xml Denis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections
Denis Dupeyron wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Doug. Make sure to also check everybody's manifesto here: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council-200906-nominees.xml Just for the record - i did add my manifesto to the elections page myself as that somehow got missed. - Tobias signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
