| 1 |
On 2010.04.18 00:48, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 2 |
> Should the new text be a GLEP, or something else? Some of us have |
| 3 |
> talked about making it some sort of constitution. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> How do we update it in the future? GLEP 39 currently does not say how |
| 6 |
> we can modify it and this is the source of lots of debate and |
| 7 |
> confusion. Let's not make that error a second time. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
Team, |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The new text should be an update to GLEP39. Then we all know where to |
| 14 |
find it. If its a newly invented form of document it will be lost. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The revised GLEP39 should explicitly state that it can be amended by |
| 17 |
some vote or another of the council ... probably unamimous. After all, |
| 18 |
we can vote them out in 11 months time or less. |
| 19 |
The reality is that if the council did something many devs disagreed |
| 20 |
with they would make their collective voices heard and the decision |
| 21 |
would be tempered or reversed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If the idea of the council voting to change GLEP39 does not appeal, |
| 24 |
several options can be added the the referendum that it sounds like we |
| 25 |
will be having. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Roy Bamford |
| 31 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 32 |
gentoo-ops |
| 33 |
forum-mods |
| 34 |
trustees |
Archives