Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:05:40
Message-Id: 1246989938.3668.1@NeddySeagoon
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format by Ned Ludd
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 On 2009.07.07 04:20, Ned Ludd wrote:
5 > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 18:52 -0600, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
6 > > We should also get rid of both the slacker rule and proxies.
7 > They're
8 > > good examples of over-engineering.
9 >
10 > This is not within the councils power to get rid of. The users voted
11 > for
12 > GLEP-39 http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html which
13 > states
14 > our requirements. Should it not be up to them to change it?
15 >
16 [snip]
17 I think you mean developers not users but that's a bye the way.
18 Authority comes to the council in two forms, that which is delegated
19 (by glep39) and that which they assume.
20
21 The limits of the latter are only determined by trial and error. If the
22 council deceided to get rid of slacker marks and proxies I doubt there
23 would be a backlash from the electorate. The council is supposed to be
24 representative of the developers they represent.
25
26 >
27 >
28
29 - --
30 Regards,
31
32 Roy Bamford
33 (NeddySeagoon) a member of
34 gentoo-ops
35 forum-mods
36 treecleaners
37 trustees
38 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
39 Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
40
41 iEYEARECAAYFAkpTjnIACgkQTE4/y7nJvat9NQCgqQEfr24uf1W3mWT9RVa0ep9G
42 kU0An2+Mc/WzHBGQ6Jad9Av6W4PbaI9r
43 =QuCf
44 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----