1 |
On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:45:35 -0400 |
2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> I think the GLEP is a little harsh there. It likely should be amended |
4 |
> or revised. To allow them the opportunity to re-schedule the meeting. |
5 |
> Make up for their mistake. Rather than rush straight to punishment. |
6 |
|
7 |
The GLEP was deliberately harsh, and was voted in based upon that |
8 |
harshness. Developers also had the option of voting for the GLEP but |
9 |
without the slacker clauses, but they chose (by a substantial margin) |
10 |
not to. |
11 |
|
12 |
> We all make mistakes, and I think so far they have done a good job and |
13 |
> earned a little leeway. But I am in no way shape or form, advocating |
14 |
> we not follow our own policies. But at the same time, we must use |
15 |
> common sense. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I think the GLEP is a good start, with some revisions it can be even |
18 |
> better :) |
19 |
|
20 |
Revisions to the GLEP pretty much require a global vote anyway, since |
21 |
that was how the original GLEP was selected. |
22 |
|
23 |
For those not aware, the "how the Council is run" stuff was decided by |
24 |
global vote, not by approval of previous or current management. It |
25 |
wasn't written or approved as a GLEP, but it's listed as a GLEP for |
26 |
historical purposes and to make it easy to find. |
27 |
|
28 |
Also for those not aware... The reason for the slacker clauses was that |
29 |
prior to that, Gentoo was managed by a rather bizarrely selected group |
30 |
of individuals (effectively, hardened and infra had representatives, the |
31 |
tree didn't, for example) who mostly communicated via a closed mailing |
32 |
list and who were quite happy disappearing for months on end and only |
33 |
showing up when one of their pet irrelevant causes was under discussion. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Ciaran McCreesh |