Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Installation:
Gentoo Handbook
Installation Docs

Documentation:
Home
Listing
About Gentoo
Philosophy
Social Contract

Resources:
Bug Tracker
Developer List
Discussion Forums
Gentoo BitTorrents
Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposals
IRC Channels
Mailing Lists
Mirrors
Name and Logo Guidelines
Online Package Database
Security Announcements
Staffing Needs
Supporting Vendors
View our CVS

Graphics:
Logos and themes
Icons
ScreenShots

Miscellaneous Resources:
Gentoo Linux Store
Gentoo-hosted projects
IBM dW/Intel article archive




List Archive: gentoo-council
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-council@g.o
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Subject: Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:26:50 -0400
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 
the lists.
-mike
Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
References:
Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
-- Denis Dupeyron
Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
-- Denis Dupeyron
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
Next by thread:
Re: Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
Previous by date:
Agenda for September 14th meeting
Next by date:
Re: Agenda for September 14th meeting


Updated Nov 23, 2009

Donate to support our development efforts.

Gentoo Centric Hosting: vr.org

VR Hosted

Tek Alchemy

Tek Alchemy

SevenL.net

SevenL.net

php|architect

php|architect

Copyright 2001-2007 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Email www@gentoo.org.