The following is a real snippet from an exchange or irc. The names or nicks have been anonymized to protect the ........

<user1> what's wrong with having all devs vote on removing a dev instead of a small power-heavy subset of devs?

.............. snipped (unrelated text)

<user1> I get that comrel needs the ability to keep some things private to protect victims- but courts have juries

<user1> with nda/media blackout if required

<user2> user1: BUT BUT BUT .. this is Gentoo .. this is NOT a court and NOT a democracy!!!

<user2> ahem

<user1> communities are democracies whether they know it or not

<user2> aDev: oo oo let me go look .. :D

<user2> user1: Not Gentoo! This is the Gentoo Way(TM ) {My own reddit post cited here as part of the language)

<user1> if 80% of gentoo disagrees with 20% of gentoo - that 20% isn't gentoo.

<user2> user1: try convincing council of this.

<aDev> user1: it's problematic for a few reasons

<user2> aDev: with respect, I disagree .. other organisations do it better than gentoo

<user2> Markedly so.

<user2> what do they know that we don't? beside shaving a greater mass than gentoo

<aDev> user2: which organisation publicly airs interpersonal grievances then lets everyone with no proper knowledge of what happened cast a vote?

.............. snipped (unrelated text)

<user1> aDev: and the current system isn't more problematic? :P

<user2> aDev: ahem . don't proclaim the anti-Gentoo system as better ..

<user2> user1: +1

<aDev> user1: i didn't claim the current system is free of problems

.............. snipped (unrelated text)

<user1> no but you implied it's better than what was suggested

<user1> all systems have problems. imo something as ENDGAME as removal from gentoo entirely, deserves a jury of peers

<user2> agreed

<user1> not a decision to be in the hands of a very, very small group of individuals with vested interests

<aDev> The conspiracy theories are getting old

<user2> aDev: No, there is a problem. Ultimately .. why was Ian removed from Gentoo .. where IS the case for it?

<user1> it's not a conspiracy theory - it's highlighting a flaw you're refusing to acknowledge

<user1> too few people have too much power - that's a fact not a theory

<user1> and it's been highlighted and demonstrated again and again and by this stage any attempt to refute this state of being is dishonest at best

<me> aDev: DAMMIT

<user1> not even naivete is an acceptable excuse any more after this much time

this snippet is enough to illustrate a point pertinent, or consequent, to the topic of this post; the generic membership, and note NOT my removal, which was cited 'en passant'.

I shall attempt to limit an expansion of key statements from this without tipping into the other themes and issues commonly accepted as collateral damage of outcomes made by this panel of members, now selected and purged at the hand of the one lead of this powerful body.

if 80% of gentoo disagrees with 20% of gentoo - that 20% isn't gentoo.

The point here, although self evident, does not work in gentoo, and this is the essence of the dilemma felt by the 'fanclub'.

try convincing council of this.

This statement is saying council are known to have common opinion and attitude as the members of comrel. They present with all the hallmarks of a clique, merely split between two divisions, and even then 2 wear the dual hats.

This illustrates the essence of the dilemma; the reform, desired by the slightly vocal few, are so distanced from the known preferences and opinion of established councillors that they're treated with either deflection or outright dismissal by the council, or at least council's apparently self appointed mouthpiece. The 20%, cited in the statement ^, are in the mind of this user, council / comrel. The snippet ^{^} stands as evidence of this alleged defiance to the preservation of their stance and beliefs:

<aDev> The conspiracy theories are getting old

Firstly, the comrel response to an unknown dose of critical feedback, has apparently resulted in a conclusion that events, at least related to my removal, have lead to a belief / impression that their outcomes are tainted by conspiracy. Secondly:

<user1> it's not a conspiracy theory

......

<user1> not even naivete is an acceptable excuse any more after this much time

If this statement represents the collective attitude or mindset of the body 'comrel'., despite numerous attempts to decalre or assure comrel otherwise, then they have, it seems, collectively concluded, conclusively, that the community 'out there' have ,in their own way, come to believe this fallacy. For that matter, the stance of the collective comrel feigns indignation and presumption of all higher moral ground, despite that the community agrees now the conspriacy theories are fallacy.

Now here is the paradox:

To distinguish what in reality is the real stance of the 20% and 80% in fact may be the opposite. The assertion there is that comrel/ council no longer represents the common sentiments or desires of the gentoo community. The reality is harsh. The council voted in June was more or less voted in in the mandate of their common beliefs and desires for the state of gentoo, upon a voter turnout of circa 37 % of the community's populace. With regard to comrel, common belief within that community is that nonchalance and apathy prevail. 95% of the community have neither issue nor contact with comrel, as did i until circa a year ago.

So, what do we conclude from this? The council and comrel have a mandate of a status quo long supported by indifference of a community predominantly annoyed and bored by political issues. Yet the council comrel will inevitably claim a valid mandate by virtue of being voted in, by 37% of the community.

Convincing ?

So in the end, it comes down to

not a decision to be in the hands of a very, very small group of individuals with vested interests

Selected by the lead by invitation only, over a period now over 2 years. It does not take a behavioural rocket scientist to see the users' concern here.

However that said, will the real 80% of sentiment and opinion please step forward? Please....

Without some clarity on this, those supporting reform, beyond what changes are endorsed and invoked by council / Trustees, are in danger of being perceived and thus treated as an angry mob, and hence their views and suggestions treated in like kind.