| 1 |
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 16:00 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 2 |
> Bryan Østergaard wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400 |
| 8 |
> >>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> |
| 11 |
> >>> |
| 12 |
> >>>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it |
| 13 |
> >>>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting. |
| 14 |
> >>>> |
| 15 |
> >>>> |
| 16 |
> >>> There were three council members who happened to be around at the time, |
| 17 |
> >>> and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an |
| 18 |
> >>> interim decision. |
| 19 |
> >>> |
| 20 |
> >>> |
| 21 |
> >> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and |
| 22 |
> >> could not wait for a regular council meeting? |
| 23 |
> >> |
| 24 |
> >> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis |
| 25 |
> >> doesn't support that. |
| 26 |
> >> But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage. |
| 27 |
> >> |
| 28 |
> >> I think we are setting a VERY dangerous precedent by allowing a subset |
| 29 |
> >> of council members to make decisions as a whole if they decide to make a |
| 30 |
> >> decision outside of a normal session. |
| 31 |
> >> |
| 32 |
> >> Who were the 3? |
| 33 |
> >> |
| 34 |
> > Already stated in another reply on this thread but the three council |
| 35 |
> > members were robbat2, kugelfang and myself. |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > Regards, |
| 38 |
> > Bryan Østergaard |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> Bryan, |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take over and |
| 43 |
> support of Gentoo. It's fairly poor taste to FORCE this through during a |
| 44 |
> non-regular meeting for something that paludis is lacking. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> It's AMAZING how fast you guys are to clamor and fix what you call a QA |
| 47 |
> issue and other problems when we've had issues highlighted for years |
| 48 |
> that the council can't move on. But once it's a possible issue with |
| 49 |
> paludis you guys are quick to respond. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed |
| 52 |
vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed |
| 53 |
one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom |
| 54 |
compare testing for portage-utils around early February. Till this |
| 55 |
moment there was no definitive decision of any sort. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 59 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives