Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Cc: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:26:53
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Resolve unfinished GLEP 39 business by Denis Dupeyron
On Friday 11 September 2009 20:38:55 Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i still dont see what is wrong with the amendment process that has been > > used multiple times in the past > [...] > > council members are *voted in* because the community *trusts them to make > > the important decisions*. if the decision made really pisses off the > > community, again you will hear about it and you can take the response > > into consideration. plus, if you do something really stupid, it isnt like > > your ass will remain in power. > > I totally agree with you. However a majority of council members and > many devs seem to think that since GLEP 39 was originally voted by all > devs then every amendment to it needs to also be voted by all devs. As > I saw that coming I asked the council to vote on whether it could > decide on a process and the outcome was no. The only sensible way to > go forward now is thus to ask developers what they want us to do. The > other alternatives are not amending GLEP 39 or asking all devs to vote > on each amendments. The former is obviously silly and I'm convinced > the latter, although logical, isn't a good practical solution and may > not be what a majority of devs want.
previous councils have already decided two things: - the amendment process - previous council decisions do not "go away" simply because a new council has taken over as such, simply clarify the GLEP and be done. i dont know what "many devs" you refer to as i see very few people actually talking about the issue. if there was real concern here, it'd be reflected on the lists. -mike


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature