| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from |
| 4 |
> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.) |
| 5 |
> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is |
| 6 |
> not allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different |
| 7 |
> issue ;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why |
| 8 |
> it was turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Of course, decisions can be reconsidered. However, GLEP 55 was first |
| 11 |
posted in 2007. We've had five councils since then, and none of these |
| 12 |
councils has accepted it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Also, this is one of the most controversial GLEPs that we ever had. |
| 15 |
Even if it solves the technical problem for the package manager, I |
| 16 |
believe that embedding such metadata information in the filename is |
| 17 |
misguided. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Then the argument that GLEP 55 would be the only solution which |
| 20 |
doesn't require a waiting period. Instead, we've been discussing it |
| 21 |
since more than four years now (so it looks like we were not in a |
| 22 |
hurry, and the urgent matters from 2007 haven't been so urgent, after |
| 23 |
all). If some of the other less controversial solutions had been |
| 24 |
implemented in 2008 or 2009, this wouldn't be an issue today. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Ulrich |
Archives