List Archive: gentoo-dev
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 Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Petteri Räty <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 07/12/2010 12:56 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> I remember very clearly as you and I were both council members at the
>> time. My point is that this discussion does not need to even happen
>> and the council shouldn't even remotely be involved here.
> I assumed the best way to change policy would be to ask council to rule
> on it. Of course we could just see if we can get a consensus fast
> without council.
There is no change of policy and there is no reason for the council to
be involved. He can change the eclass how he needs and that's the end
of the story. The council does not need to be involved at every
potential crossroad. The council only needs to be involved when a
potential technical issue arises. No technical issue, proceed ahead.
No need for the council to road block.
e.g. if its not in the "rule" book you can do it.
This is vastly different then your interpretation of the council's
mandiate, Petteri, which is "if its not in the rule book go ask
Hence my point of saying let developers develop instead of telling
them they need to ask permission and wait 4 weeks while it gets on an
agenda list everytime they want to commit to the tree or blow their
nose or boot up their computer.