Change "Council members will be chosen by a general election of all devs once per year." to "Council members will be chosen by a general election of all devs once per year. Only gentoo developers/staffers can be elected."
If we are going to change GLEP 39 in this area, I prefer Change "Council members will be chosen by a general election of all devs once per year." to "Council members will be chosen by a general election of all devs once per year. Only gentoo developers/staffers on roll call at the opening of nominations can vote or be nominated in the election." "participate" is a better way to say it. This covers the case where devs join during the course of an election, which has happened in the past.
Please drop the term staffers. I am working to get rid of that term in favour of calling all team members "developer" in order to avoid discrimination of the quality or importance of the work done by the different groups. I don't see a point in splitting the team. Especially when it comes to this issue raised here.
(In reply to Justin Lecher from comment #2) > Please drop the term staffers. > > I am working to get rid of that term in favour of calling all team members > "developer" in order to avoid discrimination of the quality or importance of > the work done by the different groups. I don't see a point in splitting the > team. Especially when it comes to this issue raised here. Well. So what do I do if I want to nominate a staffer right now?
(In reply to Julian Ospald (hasufell) from comment #3) > Well. So what do I do if I want to nominate a staffer right now? staffer == developer, so just go ahead. The only difference is that those who are classically called "developer" are in the cvs group. As an example, there are also infra admin who have root on our servers. This group is totally different from what we two are, but still there is no need to name this group separately and point out they have higher rights as we two have. I would like see the work of everyone attributed with the same value. And the simplest thing to start this is to name all team members equally.
(In reply to Justin Lecher from comment #4) > (In reply to Julian Ospald (hasufell) from comment #3) > > Well. So what do I do if I want to nominate a staffer right now? > > staffer == developer, so just go ahead. > > The only difference is that those who are classically called "developer" are > in the cvs group. As an example, there are also infra admin who have root on > our servers. This group is totally different from what we two are, but still > there is no need to name this group separately and point out they have > higher rights as we two have. > I would like see the work of everyone attributed with the same value. And > the simplest thing to start this is to name all team members equally. ok, then I simply agree with you
I don't believe the docs team has the power to edit GLEPS like this. GLEPS need to be approved by the council. Please don't change the wording on a glep without council approval. The council approved this glep with the current wording, it wasn't an accidental oversight.
(In reply to Rick Farina (Zero_Chaos) from comment #6) > I don't believe the docs team has the power to edit GLEPS like this. GLEPS > need to be approved by the council. Please don't change the wording on a > glep without council approval. > > The council approved this glep with the current wording, it wasn't an > accidental oversight. this bug is assigned to GLEP editors, they know the procedure (I guess)
Yes, we do know the procedure :) The idea is that the interested parties will hash out what they want to say in the bug, get feedback, then this bug will be submitted to the council for approval when everyone's happy. The point of using bugs over emailing glep@ is transparency; instead of a bunch of secret emails, everyone can see the discussion process. The GLEP will only be changed with Council approval. Some members of the council don't think they can change GLEP 39, but that's a separate issue.
"Council members will be chosen by a general election of all devs once per year. Only gentoo developers on roll call at the opening of nominations can vote or be nominated in the election."
(In reply to Chris Reffett from comment #8) > Some members of the council don't think they can change GLEP 39, but that's a separate issue. And now it has it's own bug #520156 [1] :). [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=520156
Does anyone wish to champion this change? If not, I'm going to close the bug due to no activity.
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/commit/?id=890b3b73a05bdbe3fdc171ab01b7428510737fe3 Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> Date: Thu Nov 10 12:13:11 2022 +0100 glep-0039: Council members must be developers Discussed in 2013-02-12 council meeting.
