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----- |