1 |
Thierry Carrez wrote: |
2 |
> Lance Albertson wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
>>I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP |
5 |
>>would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that |
6 |
>>even the council would be curious about that question as well. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> We have an infra team member in the council. And since no infra member |
10 |
> contested the change to have a subdomain that was required in _October_, |
11 |
> we thought (obviously by mistake) that it was OK for them. Our mistake |
12 |
> was to suppose at least one infra member would read council meeting |
13 |
> summaries. |
14 |
|
15 |
I forgot to mention one thing I noticed in the meeting log: |
16 |
|
17 |
15:10 <@Koon> one question is "should have it been resubmitted to dev |
18 |
for discussion before we vote" |
19 |
15:10 <@seemant> the latest version of the GLEP document reflects those |
20 |
changes |
21 |
15:11 <@seemant> yes, what Koon said |
22 |
15:11 <@Koon> I answer no, since only the mandated changes are in , but YMMV |
23 |
|
24 |
That's assuming that the changes had been properly asked by infra if the |
25 |
implementation would work. Things that look good on paper don't |
26 |
necessarily work well in practice. I was hoping the postponement of the |
27 |
vote would allow infra to voice its concerns about the new revised GLEP. |
28 |
This did not happen, the council assumed that the implementation had be |
29 |
discussed with infra (which the folks for that GLEP had not done), and |
30 |
went ahead and voted upon it. |
31 |
|
32 |
This whole thing is a failure in proper communication. We are all at |
33 |
fault for that (including me). |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
37 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
38 |
|
39 |
--- |
40 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
41 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
42 |
|
43 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |