1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from |
4 |
> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.) |
5 |
> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is |
6 |
> not allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different |
7 |
> issue ;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why |
8 |
> it was turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist. |
9 |
|
10 |
Of course, decisions can be reconsidered. However, GLEP 55 was first |
11 |
posted in 2007. We've had five councils since then, and none of these |
12 |
councils has accepted it. |
13 |
|
14 |
Also, this is one of the most controversial GLEPs that we ever had. |
15 |
Even if it solves the technical problem for the package manager, I |
16 |
believe that embedding such metadata information in the filename is |
17 |
misguided. |
18 |
|
19 |
Then the argument that GLEP 55 would be the only solution which |
20 |
doesn't require a waiting period. Instead, we've been discussing it |
21 |
since more than four years now (so it looks like we were not in a |
22 |
hurry, and the urgent matters from 2007 haven't been so urgent, after |
23 |
all). If some of the other less controversial solutions had been |
24 |
implemented in 2008 or 2009, this wouldn't be an issue today. |
25 |
|
26 |
Ulrich |