| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 08-08-2010 11:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:47:42 +0530 |
| 6 |
> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead |
| 8 |
>>> to vote on something else and not upon what was asked. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you |
| 11 |
>> file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues |
| 12 |
>> from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas |
| 13 |
>> on how to stubbornly push proposals through? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> When we *did* repeatedly push for GLEP 55 discussion and acceptance, we |
| 16 |
> were told that we were pushing it too hard and that it was creating too |
| 17 |
> much noise. When we scale back and only give it a minimum of attention |
| 18 |
> when related topics come up, we're told we should be pushing over and |
| 19 |
> over again and protesting. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Whichever way we go, someone's going to moan. I am glad to see, |
| 22 |
> however, that the only remaining objections to GLEP 55 are on purely |
| 23 |
> procedural matters... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I have to agree with Ciaran in that the GLEP55 supporters did repeatedly |
| 26 |
push for its support and that it was a previous Council that didn't got |
| 27 |
a vote out about it and left it in "the limbo". |
| 28 |
At the time, quite a few Gentoo Developers got upset about how many |
| 29 |
times GLEP55 was brought to the council and the amount of traffic it |
| 30 |
generated in the gentoo-dev ml for months. |
| 31 |
I agree with Brian that GLEP55 could have been brought to council again |
| 32 |
by now, but there's nothing preventing the current council members to |
| 33 |
determine whether the author still wants it to be approved and put it to |
| 34 |
a vote so that we can set the status of this GLEP. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
>> There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you |
| 37 |
>> have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and |
| 38 |
>> counterproductive. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> GLEP 55 is brought up when it's the appropriate answer to a problem |
| 41 |
> someone raises. It is no longer being pushed purely on its own, |
| 42 |
> because when it was pushed on its own there were complaints that it |
| 43 |
> was being discussed too much. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> As for no interest in getting it approved, that's clearly nonsense as |
| 46 |
> you know fine well. Past experience has shown that repeatedly asking |
| 47 |
> for Council discussion on it does absolutely nothing to get it |
| 48 |
> approved, so we don't do that any more. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
>>> It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the |
| 51 |
>>> responsibility of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at |
| 52 |
>>> this point. That was already tried several times, and got nowhere. |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
>> It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the |
| 55 |
>> GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He |
| 56 |
>> made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either |
| 57 |
>> put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's |
| 58 |
>> time and let it die. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> Been there, done that, got nowhere. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
- -- |
| 64 |
Regards, |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 67 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections |
| 68 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 69 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) |
| 70 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMXpcMAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPf84P/1wOP3VTvpgR6EzTqaH5M18y |
| 73 |
QLxe89bvM5GTZ12Cdvgxy1c+o74ysRKsSisdxKXyJkyvlfj7DZcyfMEsdacSDH9r |
| 74 |
pynbG0LrlXx4qy2+IU9CrG0DUIWx6KnqyTMxzKkbK04cDMw2zQb7R5cQIzeAzyO1 |
| 75 |
RZJKjVGb+L6ob7OUwJyp9TOl/BQaOo95TIEVT0HWzBXsWjqlqasB4tSZHrxPgOvW |
| 76 |
GzUcN+36cDDjBhXEo7fOIhxBCwlYMAeFLpYb8fovOaEZgrphFczIJeAR5raPSinL |
| 77 |
3hV0aupk7Spniir3gY+78gDROn4NByzy/UGtJyi53vaRpy6VqWvOLRGfRISTWGmM |
| 78 |
wQloPWsTRpTF///HBC8CreqC1AvGi3rM4zwWxA5GBPt0opA4HqDZDk+YurjQNie4 |
| 79 |
xWRcUNwZAJL7WmwPoH8ssdIsUlYY/KMt1dj2CJ1032AmfJNuzBIIpx+rxXrArisu |
| 80 |
cs7Pmg7hMaYhTY7rYtlgn4kQ1WVXUsKz1rFVmpMEHVwAnwfSErwuzdLL2JOUxXb1 |
| 81 |
ZYUIc2g0UPDKam7WkWhm/zlTbs/0/ZhEkEHWPlQnkEveEQ59GcRiH3xl21m993/o |
| 82 |
uN6yjpMRNBBZ+0owizMjwY9gJjFys8E3z6SZzEK04WY3s0kPjBFZJVkiAFR79X9s |
| 83 |
723HNGkHH8iuCGfbr2hb |
| 84 |
=Cp/0 |
| 85 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives