| 1 |
Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Erm, what exactly could have been discussed, the revised GLEP being submitted |
| 4 |
> about a day before the council meeting? Are you expecting people to hang on |
| 5 |
> email 24/7? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
No, but I surely expect people interested in the discussion to read the |
| 8 |
last month council meeting decisions. See my answer to Ciaran. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Email address is a means of communication with people, not a *power*. If |
| 11 |
> anyone's interested in/does care for what's the exact role of that particular |
| 12 |
> person in Gentoo, that's what roll-call is for. AT or not, any person w/ |
| 13 |
> @gentoo.org email address is representing Gentoo, [...] |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Well, I'd tend to lean in your direction, but read the discussion (the |
| 16 |
original one, when teh GLEP was originally submitted) and you will see |
| 17 |
quite a lot of people who disagree with you. The fact that you're the |
| 18 |
vocal ones today doesn't mean you represent everyone. In fact, that's |
| 19 |
what the council members have been elected for. To take decisions on |
| 20 |
things where no consensus is reached. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Now, we might we perhaps move the focus to more important issues jstubbs |
| 23 |
> mentioned in his last email, expecting that any implementation of the now |
| 24 |
> approved GLEP wrt the email addresses won't be pushed in a similar way the |
| 25 |
> whole revised GLEP has been, until infra issues and usefulness of this are |
| 26 |
> sorted out/reconsidered at least. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
75% of his email is about things that were in the original GLEP. Why |
| 29 |
didn't he raise his voice at that time ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Koon |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives