| 1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 19:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 23:54 Fri 24 Jul , Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The log and summary of Monday's council meeting (July 20th 2009) are |
| 5 |
>>> now available on the council project page at: |
| 6 |
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ |
| 7 |
>> 3. GLEP 39 |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> 3.1. Can the council decide on the process of voting amendments to GLEP 39 |
| 10 |
>> without an all-developers vote? |
| 11 |
>> > No: betelgeuse, dertobi123, solar, ulm. |
| 12 |
>> > Yes: calchan, leio. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> I'd like some clarification here. GLEP 39 has already been amended by |
| 16 |
>> the council [1]. Are you declaring those modifications illegal and thus |
| 17 |
>> reverted? If so, this is retroactive because it changes the past and |
| 18 |
>> removes powers that were assumed by previous councils. Are you voting to |
| 19 |
>> remove powers the council previously had? If so, isn't that in itself an |
| 20 |
>> amendment of GLEP 39? |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> 1. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html?r1=1.2&r2=1.3 |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> My personal take on it. Is rather that we mostly all agree the council |
| 25 |
> does not have the power to modify GLEP-39 as is. If the previous |
| 26 |
> councils altered GLEP-39 and there are no challenges to it, then I don't |
| 27 |
> think the existing one is going to revert those changes (more so if we |
| 28 |
> admit that the existing one should leave it alone) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I also think that we were voting about how GLEP 39 is as it currently |
| 32 |
stands. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Regards, |
| 35 |
Petteri |
Archives