Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: "Petteri R├Ąty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:58:13
Message-Id: 4A6DF86D.4060004@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary of July 20th 2009 by Ned Ludd
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 19:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> On 23:54 Fri 24 Jul , Denis Dupeyron wrote: >>> The log and summary of Monday's council meeting (July 20th 2009) are >>> now available on the council project page at: >>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ >> 3. GLEP 39 >> >> 3.1. Can the council decide on the process of voting amendments to GLEP 39 >> without an all-developers vote? >> > No: betelgeuse, dertobi123, solar, ulm. >> > Yes: calchan, leio. >> >> >> I'd like some clarification here. GLEP 39 has already been amended by >> the council [1]. Are you declaring those modifications illegal and thus >> reverted? If so, this is retroactive because it changes the past and >> removes powers that were assumed by previous councils. Are you voting to >> remove powers the council previously had? If so, isn't that in itself an >> amendment of GLEP 39? >> >> 1. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html?r1=1.2&r2=1.3 > > My personal take on it. Is rather that we mostly all agree the council > does not have the power to modify GLEP-39 as is. If the previous > councils altered GLEP-39 and there are no challenges to it, then I don't > think the existing one is going to revert those changes (more so if we > admit that the existing one should leave it alone) >
I also think that we were voting about how GLEP 39 is as it currently stands. Regards, Petteri

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature