1 |
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700 |
3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> > Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 |
5 |
> > solves all EAPI issues/world hunger. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and |
8 |
> > make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is |
9 |
> > trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP |
12 |
> 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55 |
13 |
> was a tie. |
14 |
|
15 |
A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it |
16 |
was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real |
17 |
issue. And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be |
18 |
voted on, or revisited. |
19 |
|
20 |
That's the thing; the quibbling in details is lovely, as is the |
21 |
repeated rehashing of the same technical matter, over and over, but |
22 |
the path required to get it approved is established. |
23 |
|
24 |
Push it to the council and ask for a vote. They drop it from their |
25 |
plate, push it back to the council again. That route at least has the |
26 |
chance of being productive. Hell, run for council if you're tired of |
27 |
them dropping things. |
28 |
|
29 |
Instead we've got continual sniping over the damned glep instead of |
30 |
taking the proactive steps. Either way, unless I get beat down by |
31 |
the other council members this will be on the next council agenda. |
32 |
|
33 |
If it can be squeezed into the coming monday meeting, I'd prefer it, |
34 |
but it's short notice I realize. |
35 |
|
36 |
~harring |