betelgeuse ??? cardoe -- dang and flameeyes reported that they were not asked to proxy dberkholz dertobi123 dev-zero halcy0n lu_zero Council size ------------ 20:07 < dberkholz@> keep as is or let it change somehow? 20:08 < dev-zero@> well, mine is that there should be a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 7 20:08 I have nothing against adding an option to vote for a smaller council. Not really sure how that voting works though. 20:09 as is, if it needs to changed i'd like to see at least 5 council members 20:09 < dberkholz@> i think we should also let it change, from 1-7 20:10 < lu_zero@> I'd keep 5+ 20:10 < dberkholz@> upper limit to make it small enough to be effective, lower limit to let devs decide on what kind of leadership they want 20:11 < dev-zero@> if you want them to decide what leadership they want you don't set a lower limit 20:11 < dev-zero@> but in the end they voted once for a council and should therefore get a council and not a single person 20:12 dev-zero: agreed, i see no reason nor request nor $whatever to change our leadership model 20:13 < Halcy0n@> I don't see a reason to make it variable, and I think it would just complicate things. If the size should change, I think it should be static. 20:14 < Halcy0n@> I guess I'm not seeing the reason for changing it, or a big request to change the size of the council. 20:14 fully ack betelgeuse: OK with change, voting dberkholz: yes to change, 1-7 During meetings, we're going to assume everyone is actually devoting their full attention and not wait around for minutes for the 7th council member to respond. We're just going to move on to the next topic. Terms: length, and staggering 20:22 < Halcy0n@> Moving this along, I like the idea of longer terms and staggered elections. I think a 2 year term and having elections every year is a great idea. 20:25 < dev-zero@> and yes, I think people will still take matters serious enough to not just quit just when they're tired about it 20:26 < darkside_ > another point. i think 2 year terms might scare off people from even running for council. not sure if that is good or bad 20:26 < Halcy0n@> I see the arguments for both sides as well. 20:26 < Halcy0n@> darkside_: that might be a good thing actually. 20:26 < Halcy0n@> darkside_: since it would mean that people that actually go through with it are interested in doing the job. 20:28 < dberkholz@> since i'm not convinced there are definite benefits to changing, i'd rather leave things the way they are (pending further convincing, of course) 20:28 < dberkholz@> i believe solar's argument that continuity is provided by good people getting re-elected 20:28 ack 20:28 that's always been a case in the past and will be in the future 20:29 < ciaranm > most people who stand for reelection end up getting reelected 20:29 < ciaranm > not like it's a whole new council every term, and if that did happen it'd indicate something being severely wrong anyway 20:30 < dev-zero@> well, that's true. Until a council member didn't screw up completely, the probability is high he gets reelected PMS bug: prepalldocs/EAPI ------------------------- - What is the point of prepalldocs? What benefits does it have? - Space: how much? - Code changes to dodoc if space is significant - Problem and its implications (What problem is created by prepalldocs existing?) - Possible solutions and their implications - Keep in EAPI=0, drop in new EAPI - Well-defined behavior would be useful, otherwise definition is ambiguous - Drop everywhere now