| 1 |
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 22:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:27:53 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > The council have met monthly as required by the GLEP. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Nope. The GLEP requires that there's at least one open meeting per |
| 7 |
> month. It also, as a separate requirement, forces a reelection whenever |
| 8 |
> a meeting has less than 50% attendance. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I think the GLEP is a little harsh there. It likely should be amended or |
| 11 |
revised. To allow them the opportunity to re-schedule the meeting. Make |
| 12 |
up for their mistake. Rather than rush straight to punishment. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
We all make mistakes, and I think so far they have done a good job and |
| 15 |
earned a little leeway. But I am in no way shape or form, advocating we |
| 16 |
not follow our own policies. But at the same time, we must use common |
| 17 |
sense. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think the GLEP is a good start, with some revisions it can be even |
| 20 |
better :) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 24 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 25 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives