| 1 |
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 19:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is |
| 5 |
> trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that |
| 6 |
> somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo. Yeah... because that's |
| 7 |
> just what the Council wants to do, make Gentoo a steaming pile of rubble |
| 8 |
> so we can be the supreme rulers of... nothing. Now, if only we can get |
| 9 |
> all these pesky developers out of the way, we could rule the world! |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You're right, there is. For the record, though, my feeling isn't |
| 13 |
anything about being anti-authority, etc. Quite the opposite, in fact, |
| 14 |
because the current leadership is actually doing and accomplishing |
| 15 |
things. As I stated in my original email (agreeing with your own view |
| 16 |
that this isn't that big an issue): what was the hurry to get an |
| 17 |
announcement/decision made without even a valid alternative in place? |
| 18 |
In other words, there was a policy "decision" without a clear |
| 19 |
established way to not violate it (yes, the mplayer/ffmpeg maintainers |
| 20 |
did whatever it is they did to comply, I know that, but it's not a |
| 21 |
generalisable solution). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So, being that this situation is *not* that big, couldn't it just have |
| 24 |
waited for all the council members to get together and have opportunity |
| 25 |
to really propose and establish a viable alternative? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this |
| 28 |
required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council |
| 29 |
meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less |
| 30 |
of a hub-bub about it. But, come on, this is a 3-package issue. |
Archives