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
Hash: SHA1

On 2009.07.07 04:20, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 18:52 -0600, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > We should also get rid of both the slacker rule and proxies. > They're > > good examples of over-engineering. > > This is not within the councils power to get rid of. The users voted > for > GLEP-39 which > states > our requirements. Should it not be up to them to change it? >
[snip] I think you mean developers not users but that's a bye the way. Authority comes to the council in two forms, that which is delegated (by glep39) and that which they assume. The limits of the latter are only determined by trial and error. If the council deceided to get rid of slacker marks and proxies I doubt there would be a backlash from the electorate. The council is supposed to be representative of the developers they represent.
> >
- -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpTjnIACgkQTE4/y7nJvat9NQCgqQEfr24uf1W3mWT9RVa0ep9G kU0An2+Mc/WzHBGQ6Jad9Av6W4PbaI9r =QuCf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----