| 1 |
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording |
| 4 |
> is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to |
| 5 |
> spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue |
| 6 |
> that doesnt exist |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would |
| 9 |
be something like this: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Gentoo, for whatever reason, ends up relying upon $sponsor for, say, |
| 12 |
two thirds of its hardware. $sponsor employs a Gentoo developer who has |
| 13 |
certain political views that aren't in line with Gentoo policy. Said |
| 14 |
developer uses his influence as an employee of $sponsor to get $sponsor |
| 15 |
to say to the Council "either you change policy to say blah within a |
| 16 |
month or we're going to stop sponsoring you". |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Now, something like that, were it to happen, would put Gentoo in a very |
| 19 |
tricky situation. The Council can't easily say no, since losing two |
| 20 |
thirds of its hardware would effectively halt development. Equally, |
| 21 |
however, it's not exactly a good idea for the Council to establish a |
| 22 |
precedent of rushing through policy changes that most people don't want |
| 23 |
because of outside pressure. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
*shrug* I guess that's the intention behind the proposal, anyway. If it |
| 26 |
is, I agree that Christel's wording isn't as clear as it could be... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives