1 |
On Friday 11 September 2009 20:38:55 Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been |
4 |
> > used multiple times in the past |
5 |
> [...] |
6 |
> > council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make |
7 |
> > the important decisions*. if the decision made really pisses off the |
8 |
> > community, again you will hear about it and you can take the response |
9 |
> > into consideration. plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like |
10 |
> > your ass will remain in power. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I totally agree with you. However a majority of council members and |
13 |
> many devs seem to think that since GLEP 39 was originally voted by all |
14 |
> devs then every amendment to it needs to also be voted by all devs. As |
15 |
> I saw that coming I asked the council to vote on whether it could |
16 |
> decide on a process and the outcome was no. The only sensible way to |
17 |
> go forward now is thus to ask developers what they want us to do. The |
18 |
> other alternatives are not amending GLEP 39 or asking all devs to vote |
19 |
> on each amendments. The former is obviously silly and I'm convinced |
20 |
> the latter, although logical, isn't a good practical solution and may |
21 |
> not be what a majority of devs want. |
22 |
|
23 |
previous councils have already decided two things: |
24 |
- the amendment process |
25 |
- previous council decisions do not "go away" simply because a new council |
26 |
has taken over |
27 |
as such, simply clarify the GLEP and be done. |
28 |
|
29 |
i dont know what "many devs" you refer to as i see very few people actually |
30 |
talking about the issue. if there was real concern here, it'd be reflected on |
31 |
the lists. |
32 |
-mike |