List Archive: gentoo-council
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Friday 11 September 2009 20:38:55 Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been
> > used multiple times in the past
> > council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make
> > the important decisions*. if the decision made really pisses off the
> > community, again you will hear about it and you can take the response
> > into consideration. plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like
> > your ass will remain in power.
> I totally agree with you. However a majority of council members and
> many devs seem to think that since GLEP 39 was originally voted by all
> devs then every amendment to it needs to also be voted by all devs. As
> I saw that coming I asked the council to vote on whether it could
> decide on a process and the outcome was no. The only sensible way to
> go forward now is thus to ask developers what they want us to do. The
> other alternatives are not amending GLEP 39 or asking all devs to vote
> on each amendments. The former is obviously silly and I'm convinced
> the latter, although logical, isn't a good practical solution and may
> not be what a majority of devs want.
previous councils have already decided two things:
- the amendment process
- previous council decisions do not "go away" simply because a new council
has taken over
as such, simply clarify the GLEP and be done.
i dont know what "many devs" you refer to as i see very few people actually
talking about the issue. if there was real concern here, it'd be reflected on
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)