Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:10:42
Message-Id: 1210968635.8656.22.camel@txslpc1d36.wkst.vzwnet.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] by Ferris McCormick
On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 15:09 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 09:59 -0500, Paul Varner wrote: > > Clarify the GLEP so that it refers to reqularly scheduled meetings only. > > I see no reason to kick the council out and rehold elections over a > > miscommunicated special meeting. > > > > Regards, > > Paul > > It's at least as hard to modify the GLEP as it is to follow it. And I > don't think we want to be in the business of changing policies then > applying the new policies retroactively. If we do that, what's the > point of having policies in the first place? And, as ciaranm (one of > the GLEP's authors) pointed out, the GLEP requires at least one open > meeting per month, not regularly scheduled meetings. This month, > Council scheduled two meetings, and the GLEP applies to all Council > meetings.
(Now that I've read through all of the responses on -project.) Back when we voted on the new metastructure I read the GLEP as meaning the regularly scheduled meeting. However, since ciaranm wrote the proposal and has stated that he clearly meant it to be any meeting at all, then I guess it means it is time for an election. However, I still would like the intent of the GLEP clarified. If I can misread the intent of the GLEP, then so can others as well. As far as miscommunication for holding the meeting, I am giving the council the benefit of the doubt based upon Donnie's intial email. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-council@l.g.o mailing list