| 1 |
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 23:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Also for those not aware... The reason for the slacker clauses was that |
| 4 |
> prior to that, Gentoo was managed by a rather bizarrely selected group |
| 5 |
> of individuals (effectively, hardened and infra had representatives, the |
| 6 |
> tree didn't, for example) who mostly communicated via a closed mailing |
| 7 |
> list and who were quite happy disappearing for months on end and only |
| 8 |
> showing up when one of their pet irrelevant causes was under discussion. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Do those reason still stand? Or has there been enough history of other |
| 11 |
behavior and more diverse councils operating in the public since then? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Almost seems like we might need to revisit this. I am not saying I mind |
| 14 |
harshness, when due. But seems there is to little room for mistakes. |
| 15 |
First mistake, and all are gone. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If we need to take it to a global vote, then so be it. Seems like a vote |
| 18 |
is coming either way :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 22 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 23 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives