| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:14:03PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Isn't this an issue that also exists for the Gentoo developers in general? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Not as much since we can track things like last cvs commit, last login to |
| 6 |
> toucan, etc. But it does exist to some extent. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That does not, however, make it acceptable to further exacerbate the |
| 9 |
> problem. We're working towards improving the procedures and controls we |
| 10 |
> have in place today. We're not going to implement something that will move |
| 11 |
> us backwards. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states |
| 14 |
it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Stop pointing at one interpretation of it that sucks, when the glep |
| 17 |
_does_ leave it open to you how to implement it. It's a waste of |
| 18 |
people's time and bandwidth, and is a bit disenguous. |
| 19 |
~harring |
Archives