Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1



On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:45:53 +0200

Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote:



> Roy Bamford wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 2008.06.05 01:00, ?ukasz Damentko wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be
> >> open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008).
> >
> > Team,
> >
> > I don't want to nominate anyone who hasn't been nominated already.
> > I would like to address all the candidates who have or will accept
> > council nominations.
> >
> > 1. Please tell us how/if you plan to fix GLEP 39. (You may not consider
> > it broken)
>
> a) A GLEP 39 is a "proposal" to do/implement something and should not be
> used as a way to finally document something. So, if we want to fix it, we
> should write down a new GLEP replacing GLEP 39 and then write that
> information down where it belongs to: in proj/en/council (and/or the
> developer handbook)
>
> b) Reading GLEP 1 you'll see that there are only two types of
> GLEPs: "Standards Track" and "Informational". One is for technical stuff
> and the other for organizational, but: "Informational GLEPs do not
> necessarily represent a Gentoo Linux community
> consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore
> Informational GLEPs or follow their advice."
>
> So we either have to stop using GLEPs for such kind of "rules/definitions"
> OR redefine how GLEPs should be used properly for changing organizational
> processes.
>
> We should finally stop doing cosmetic changes or we will forever struggle
> with outside people who know our rules better than we and as a result waste
> our time and energy and block our processes.
>
> Cheers,
> Tiziano
>


GLEP 39 is informational in that it describes council+policy.  The

actual policy was established in 2005 in a vote by the developer

community.  Thus, changes to the GLEP should be only to clarify actual

policy (and I don't know where it is written down.  I remember the

vote, but don't know who controls the actual policy document).  I

believe that policy changes would require another vote;  GLEP 39

changes should not change policy.  At least, that is my recollection and

understanding.

>
> --
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list
>


Regards,

Ferris

- --

Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>

Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)



iEYEARECAAYFAkhKs6IACgkQQa6M3+I///cUywCghnDT7JgB9ngb44H90SKK51IX

1FgAoJMjiAu8h5fJArjSSselZ33Xxjd4

=Lq9L

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----