| 1 |
Thierry Carrez wrote: |
| 2 |
> Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on |
| 6 |
>>their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with |
| 7 |
>>ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You |
| 8 |
>>shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require them to wait |
| 9 |
>>another month. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Well, there is nowhere policy on how to handle GLEPs that "will be |
| 13 |
> accepted if the following changes are made". You say it should have been |
| 14 |
> republished to -dev. We said, "we accept it but next time it should be |
| 15 |
> published to -dev at least a week before". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I was looking for the revised glep to discuss not the meeting notes from |
| 18 |
the previous meeting. The GLEP should be the focus of discussion not the |
| 19 |
meeting notes. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
>>The subdomain and sharing of an access for r/o cvs access was first |
| 22 |
>>introduced in the revised version of the GLEP which was sent out the day |
| 23 |
>>before the vote. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> In fact it's been introduced 4 days before, on Nov 11. Then on Nov 12, |
| 27 |
> Homer Parker submitted the revised GLEP to the council agenda. Then, on |
| 28 |
> Nov 14, realizing some people thought it should have been resubmitted |
| 29 |
> before, he posted it to -dev. On Nov 15, not one single complain was |
| 30 |
> made on the subject of the email subdomain. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Submitting the idea and actually submitting the revision are two |
| 33 |
completely different things. Not a single complaint was sent because |
| 34 |
some of us can't catch up on -dev email within 24 hours. I was actually |
| 35 |
going to reply to it, but thought that the council would have enough |
| 36 |
sense to see our concerns about giving the public so little time to |
| 37 |
discuss would postpone the vote. But I didn't get to that before the |
| 38 |
vote time because of real life constraints. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
>>I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP |
| 41 |
>>would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that |
| 42 |
>>even the council would be curious about that question as well. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> We have an infra team member in the council. And since no infra member |
| 46 |
> contested the change to have a subdomain that was required in _October_, |
| 47 |
> we thought (obviously by mistake) that it was OK for them. Our mistake |
| 48 |
> was to suppose at least one infra member would read council meeting |
| 49 |
> summaries. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
>From the meeting log: |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
15:14 <@solar> He posted to the list that this topic could be postponed. |
| 54 |
15:14 <@SwifT> I wouldn't ask for postponal, for me the GLEP's issues |
| 55 |
have been addressed and taken care of |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
[...] |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
15:23 <@solar> If this is not being postponed on the topic of glep41 as |
| 60 |
said on the mailing list then I'm going with a no on this topic. So far |
| 61 |
what I've seen of AT's and the existing AT lead for x86@ has not been |
| 62 |
very encouraging. thus I dont think it is worth it to put the extra |
| 63 |
workload on infra. |
| 64 |
15:24 <@vapier> and if it were postponed, what would change your mind ? |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
[...] |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
15:27 <@Koon> anyway, he has the right to vote no, anyone reverting his |
| 69 |
vote to follow solar ? |
| 70 |
15:27 <@solar> the majority of you have voted yes so it still will pass. |
| 71 |
I'm fine with that. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
So, infra's 'member' on the council clearly was trying to protect our |
| 74 |
interests and postponing the vote until we had a clear voice on the |
| 75 |
matter. I made [1] my concerns about the topic the day before the vote. |
| 76 |
I didn't have enough time to go through the GLEP and come back with |
| 77 |
specifics. I was hoping that the decision would be postponed so I could |
| 78 |
voice my concerns then. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2 |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
>>>I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the |
| 83 |
>>>problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which |
| 84 |
>>>is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that |
| 85 |
>>>decision, I no longer care. |
| 86 |
>> |
| 87 |
>>No longer caring about a decision you made? I certainly hope not. |
| 88 |
> |
| 89 |
> |
| 90 |
> No longer caring enough to try to improve the way Gentoo works. I tried, |
| 91 |
> and it's not worth it. I am like two feet from the exit door, and prefer |
| 92 |
> not to comment anymore on the subject, to calm down and avoid definitive |
| 93 |
> decisions I would regret. |
| 94 |
|
| 95 |
I'm sorry to hear that. |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
-- |
| 98 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 99 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 100 |
|
| 101 |
--- |
| 102 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 103 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 104 |
|
| 105 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives