| 1 |
Thierry Carrez wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Cut the kabbale crap : we felt bad about delaying the GLEP vote for one |
| 4 |
> more month, and we also felt bad about pushing the decision while some |
| 5 |
> people already complained that revised version wasn't published soon |
| 6 |
> enough. The meetings logs are quite clear on this. So we took the median |
| 7 |
> way, accept that GLEP with those changes nobody complained about, and |
| 8 |
> create policy so that such things won't happen in the future. Apparently |
| 9 |
> we were wrong on two accounts : |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on |
| 12 |
their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with |
| 13 |
ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You |
| 14 |
shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require them to wait |
| 15 |
another month. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> - There were people that disagreed with the changes but stayed quiet in |
| 18 |
> their corner, waiting for a revised GLEP to appear to make their |
| 19 |
> comments, and that were caught short by its publication just before the |
| 20 |
> meeting |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The subdomain and sharing of an access for r/o cvs access was first |
| 23 |
introduced in the revised version of the GLEP which was sent out the day |
| 24 |
before the vote. I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP |
| 25 |
would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that |
| 26 |
even the council would be curious about that question as well. As far as |
| 27 |
I can tell, neither me nor Kurt were contacted directly asking about the |
| 28 |
logistics of their revised proposal. I agree with Kurt's previous email |
| 29 |
that we're not trying to a pull a "we have the power so we won't do it", |
| 30 |
its more about "we were never informed/asked about the logistics of the |
| 31 |
revised GLEP and had things voted upon without our proper input. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> - There were people that don't have an opinion on the subject but were |
| 34 |
> watching the council for its first bad step to be able to accuse it of |
| 35 |
> abuse of power or worse |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I certainly hope that's not the case. I respect the council and what |
| 38 |
they are trying to do, I just feel that you guys make a big mistake by |
| 39 |
letting this through without proper discussion. I would like to see one |
| 40 |
or several of the council members speak out with some solution for this |
| 41 |
problem we clearly have. What happened, happened.. lets work together to |
| 42 |
fix this problem instead of dwelling on the past. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the |
| 45 |
> problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which |
| 46 |
> is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that |
| 47 |
> decision, I no longer care. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
No longer caring about a decision you made? I certainly hope not. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
To me, the most acceptable solution considering the circumstances should |
| 52 |
have been "They didn't get the revised version out with proper time for |
| 53 |
discussion. I think its best that we wait until the next meeting because |
| 54 |
of some logistical issues that still need to be addressed in the GLEP." |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 58 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
--- |
| 61 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 62 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives