| 1 |
> As for what the downside would be, I don't really know, but I'm sure |
| 2 |
> that there are devs who will object. Perhaps they have some quite valid |
| 3 |
> downsides that we haven't considered. There's only 13 of us, after all. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I definitely agree. I was just seeing some opposition from you and |
| 6 |
seemant which seemed to indicate to me that you personally had some |
| 7 |
feelings on the matter. If either of you do I think that we should nail |
| 8 |
them down and get them ironed out before we present the document to the |
| 9 |
greater dev community. It will make one less speed bump in what is sure |
| 10 |
to be a bumpy ride. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Once again, I'd like to urge that we move this discussion to a more |
| 13 |
> public forum as soon as we can. I agree that there's nothing insidious |
| 14 |
> here, but if we try to present a fait accompli then we're going to |
| 15 |
> create something that appears insidious to many, regardless of whether |
| 16 |
> or not it actually is. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Agreed. Once we are satisfied that it is as good as we can get it I'd |
| 19 |
like to present it for comment (and amendment) on -dev. Remember |
| 20 |
though...this list is public...so other interested parties should be |
| 21 |
watching... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
/me wonders why there are no non-trustee comments... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Daniel Ostrow |
| 27 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 28 |
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} |
| 29 |
dostrow@g.o |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives