| 1 |
Danny van Dyk wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said: |
| 4 |
> a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted |
| 5 |
> in in the first meeting. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative |
| 8 |
nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other |
| 9 |
things. I would have preferred that the people involved with this could |
| 10 |
have directly asked infra if this would work for us. That's a simple |
| 11 |
request that I did not see from these folks. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> b) they stated that this is the first and the last time that a GLEP will |
| 14 |
> be voted on if that hasn't been discussed sufficiently long enough on -dev |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Good, so lets please fix this current GLEP before we implement it. I |
| 17 |
don't like the answer of "they voted on it, so do it". To me, they voted |
| 18 |
upon it without following their new mandate on discussion of GLEPs |
| 19 |
before the meeting. The whole point of GLEPs is discussion to make sure |
| 20 |
we don't make mistakes, especially if revisions were made. Just because |
| 21 |
it follows the mandates of what the council wanted doesn't mean it |
| 22 |
shouldn't be discussed again on -dev. I trust the council's decisions |
| 23 |
and commonsense, but there still needs to be input from the masses to |
| 24 |
ensure details are worked out BEFORE they are voted upon. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Simply saying "we'll have a subdomain for new email addresses" without |
| 27 |
asking infra about it first negates the vote in my eyes because we |
| 28 |
weren't properly involved in the discussion process which was skipped |
| 29 |
for the revision. We're the ones that will be put on the task to |
| 30 |
implement it, yet never got any direct input from the people who wrote |
| 31 |
this GLEP. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> c) that new limitations for a vote are: send (revised) glep to |
| 34 |
> gentoo-dev (at least) 14 days before the next council meeting, ask (at |
| 35 |
> least) 7 days before the meeting for vote. (For this you can also read |
| 36 |
> seemants mail announcing the availability of the logs) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Great, so lets negate the vote and do the right thing for this current |
| 39 |
GLEP. I don't see the point of letting this one pass by especially since |
| 40 |
the GLEP folks even said themselves they could wait. All I'm after is |
| 41 |
doing this the right way instead of shoving it under a table and just |
| 42 |
forcing the issue. I would prefer this be corrected as stated above with |
| 43 |
proper discussion instead of saying that its already be decided on so do it. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Can some of the council members please comment on this? I'm curious |
| 46 |
their thoughts on this. Maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree, I just |
| 47 |
see this as a terrible miscommunication between the GLEP authors, the |
| 48 |
council, and infra. The council and GLEP authors were in line, but |
| 49 |
weren't in line with infra. I would just like the vote to be |
| 50 |
reconsidered or postponed until we properly come up with a logistical |
| 51 |
solution that will work for infra. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 55 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
--- |
| 58 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 59 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives