| 1 |
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 3 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:09 +0530 |
| 5 |
>> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Allowing him to proxy in a council meeting is both disallowed |
| 7 |
>>> (non-gentoo devs cannot be on the council) |
| 8 |
>> Please point to the rule that says that a non-developer cannot be on |
| 9 |
>> the Council, and please point to the rule that says that a Council |
| 10 |
>> member cannot appoint a non-developer as their proxy. I see no mention |
| 11 |
>> of either in GLEP 39, which only restricts voting of Council members to |
| 12 |
>> developers, and only restricts proxies to not having one person with |
| 13 |
>> multiple votes. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Oh so you'll argue semantics now? The spirit of the rule is |
| 17 |
> excessively clear. No non-gentoo-developer can be a member of council |
| 18 |
> -- permanent, temporary, or proxy. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If a council member can't find a gentoo developer to be their proxy, |
| 21 |
> that says a lot about the council member. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> In any case, discussing this with you is completely m00t given my past |
| 24 |
> experiences with discussions with you. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> ~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Actually, please read GLEP 39 and you will see that it doesn't restrict |
| 32 |
council members to developers only. Basically under the current rules I |
| 33 |
think it's technically right to be proxied by anyone. If you don't think |
| 34 |
being proxied by non developers is wise, don't vote for those council |
| 35 |
members next time. If we want to restrict the council to developers |
| 36 |
only, we should think about modifying GLEP 39 (which should be done via |
| 37 |
a vote among developers as that's they way 39 was agreed upon). |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Regards, |
| 40 |
Petteri |
Archives