Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business

Denis Dupeyron
I would like to add an item for the next council meeting. Since GLEP
39 was modified in the past, and since discussion material for
modifications will be coming sooner rather than later, we need to have
an official way to amend it.

During our first meeting we voted that the council was not competent
to decide on a way to amend GLEP 39. There was previously no formal
process to do this and now the situation is locked up at the council
level since we can't decide. Some council members have said or assumed
that the natural fallback to that was that any amendment would need to
be voted by the developer community. There are two big and distinct
problems with that.

As soon as the council declares itself incompetent to decide on a way
to amend GLEP 39, it can't anymore choose or assume a process. Because
this is exactly deciding of a way to go forward which we voted we
couldn't do. How logical is it to tell the community "We can't tell
you how but here is how we will do it!" ?

Also, an all-developer vote may not be the right solution. Some devs
do want to vote on GLEP 39 amendments. Some say they have voted for a
council and delegated their voice to them and want them to do the job.
Some don't really have an opinion. Many haven't even read GLEP 39 and
couldn't care less. From the results of my informal poll, I'm truly
amazed (and worried) by the number of devs who will not want to
participate to a vote on GLEP 39 amendments. Not counting those who
say they will but won't. I'm hoping I'm wrong but in case I'm not I'm
afraid votes on amendments will be like jumping off a cliff, i.e. an
exciting trip to nowhere.

Let's face it: the only way to know what developers want is to ask
them. Formally. And let's not pretend there are no changes coming for
GLEP 39. I have some in the pipeline and I know others have too. If we
don't have a framework for this we're preventing ourselves to do
adjustments on our structure and condemning it to only evolving in big
chaotic steps. It's like not being able to write a patch and having to
wait for release 2.0 which may never come. So, for the next meeting I
would like the council to discuss and initiate an all-developer vote
on a process to amend GLEP 39.

Denis.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business

Mike Frysinger
i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been used
multiple times in the past and ive pointed out a few times (but apparently no
one has noticed).  treat it like any other item of business.
 - it is announced on the gentoo-dev mailing list as an item (so it has to be
posted weeks ahead of time)
 - if the developer community really has a problem, issues will be aired
 - once issues are aired out, vote on it like any other item
 - post exact changes to the mailing list as part of the meeting summary
again, if there are real issues with the changes, people will complain.  
council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make the
important decisions*.  if the decision made really pisses off the community,
again you will hear about it and you can take the response into consideration.  
plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like your ass will remain in
power.  wringing your hands over nonexistent issues is simply wasting
everybody's time.
-mike

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business

Denis Dupeyron
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Mike Frysinger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been used
> multiple times in the past
[...]
> council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make the
> important decisions*.  if the decision made really pisses off the community,
> again you will hear about it and you can take the response into consideration.
> plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like your ass will remain in
> power.

I totally agree with you. However a majority of council members and
many devs seem to think that since GLEP 39 was originally voted by all
devs then every amendment to it needs to also be voted by all devs. As
I saw that coming I asked the council to vote on whether it could
decide on a process and the outcome was no. The only sensible way to
go forward now is thus to ask developers what they want us to do. The
other alternatives are not amending GLEP 39 or asking all devs to vote
on each amendments. The former is obviously silly and I'm convinced
the latter, although logical, isn't a good practical solution and may
not be what a majority of devs want.

Denis.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business

Andrew Kirch
In reply to this post by Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger wrote:

> i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been used
> multiple times in the past and ive pointed out a few times (but apparently no
> one has noticed).  treat it like any other item of business.
>  - it is announced on the gentoo-dev mailing list as an item (so it has to be
> posted weeks ahead of time)
>  - if the developer community really has a problem, issues will be aired
>  - once issues are aired out, vote on it like any other item
>  - post exact changes to the mailing list as part of the meeting summary
> again, if there are real issues with the changes, people will complain.  
> council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make the
> important decisions*.  if the decision made really pisses off the community,
> again you will hear about it and you can take the response into consideration.  
> plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like your ass will remain in
> power.  wringing your hands over nonexistent issues is simply wasting
> everybody's time.
> -mike
>  
Perhaps it would be too simple, but why not put the method of amendment
to a vote of the development community and settle this?
-- prevents this issue reoccurring every time GLEP-39 needs to be
amended (which seems to be often)
-- the council does face the dev community every year at election time,
so they cannot run unchecked.

The council power is also limited by the Trustees, the Board, and in
some cases Infra.  I consider the possibility of run-away stupidity to
be minimal.


--
Andrew D Kirch


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business

Mike Frysinger
In reply to this post by Denis Dupeyron
On Friday 11 September 2009 20:38:55 Denis Dupeyron wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been
> > used multiple times in the past
> [...]
> > council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make
> > the important decisions*.  if the decision made really pisses off the
> > community, again you will hear about it and you can take the response
> > into consideration. plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like
> > your ass will remain in power.
>
> I totally agree with you. However a majority of council members and
> many devs seem to think that since GLEP 39 was originally voted by all
> devs then every amendment to it needs to also be voted by all devs. As
> I saw that coming I asked the council to vote on whether it could
> decide on a process and the outcome was no. The only sensible way to
> go forward now is thus to ask developers what they want us to do. The
> other alternatives are not amending GLEP 39 or asking all devs to vote
> on each amendments. The former is obviously silly and I'm convinced
> the latter, although logical, isn't a good practical solution and may
> not be what a majority of devs want.
previous councils have already decided two things:
 - the amendment process
 - previous council decisions do not "go away" simply because a new council
has taken over
as such, simply clarify the GLEP and be done.

i dont know what "many devs" you refer to as i see very few people actually
talking about the issue.  if there was real concern here, it'd be reflected on
the lists.
-mike

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business

Torsten Veller
In reply to this post by Denis Dupeyron
* Denis Dupeyron <[hidden email]>:
> since discussion material for modifications will be coming
> sooner rather than later
[...]
> And let's not pretend there are no changes coming for GLEP 39. I have
> some in the pipeline and I know others have too.

Why don't you all present the changes *now*?