1 |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:05:18PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: |
2 |
> And yes, we probably could/should have said something |
3 |
> about lark earlier, but didn't catch that before hand. |
4 |
|
5 |
Shit happens (lark). The appearance/concerns of cvs (specifically the |
6 |
"this won't fly if it's single key") is what I'm pointing at here. |
7 |
|
8 |
> >>>Sucks, but too damn bad. |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >>I'm not going to reply to that. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Probably wise, since it wasn't a friendly jab on my part (for which I |
13 |
> > should be duly flogged). |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I was rather disappointed in the unprofessional ism of that comment. |
16 |
|
17 |
Eh, I don't have the tolerance you do. :) |
18 |
|
19 |
The phrasing was intended to make it clear that people not tracking |
20 |
what's going on, then getting bit in the ass by it are to some degree |
21 |
at fault. |
22 |
|
23 |
See the apache complaints, and ensuing emerge --news for reasoning |
24 |
behind this one (and yes, the question of how best to push the info |
25 |
out is an issue, but it still requires proactive measures from the |
26 |
people affected). |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
> Solar even mentioned it DURING the meeting to hold on the vote. But |
30 |
> everyone else thought that everything was covered and passing it |
31 |
> wouldn't cause a problem (which was incorrect). |
32 |
|
33 |
Solar got overruled. majority vote... |
34 |
|
35 |
> The hole was closed after they decided on the GLEP. That doesn't make |
36 |
> sense. Why make a rule for it while ignoring the current situation at |
37 |
> hand? This GLEP was the whole reason they added that stipulation, and it |
38 |
> made no sense to me why they didn't apply it to this GLEP they voted |
39 |
> upon. They have the power to do it if it out of common sense. |
40 |
<snip> |
41 |
> > Specifically reverting/changing a glep. See glep1 for actual process, |
42 |
> > or nudge glep41 authors to revise and get council to sign off on it |
43 |
> > (that chunk is somewhat unspecified procedure wise). |
44 |
> |
45 |
> After we sort out details on our end, I might do that. |
46 |
|
47 |
I'll gladly shut up in that case. The concern I have is that the |
48 |
council got stuck in a nasty position, and choose what they thought |
49 |
was an acceptable solution (and modified things so that scenario |
50 |
should never occur again). |
51 |
|
52 |
Reversion based upon next day ml complaints I'm not much for since |
53 |
A) the concern was there, and they made a decision (contraversial |
54 |
or not). |
55 |
B) reverting the decision is doable via existing methods, a call for |
56 |
reversion on the dev ml isn't really one of them (imo). |
57 |
|
58 |
Why am I being a stickler on this? Reversion via ml complaints after |
59 |
the decision opens the door for vocal minorities to try and revert |
60 |
gleps they dislike, rather then having to force their |
61 |
ideas/goals/changes through normal processes (where people can nuke |
62 |
the bad idea/infighting out via normal means) |
63 |
|
64 |
The concern _was_ leveled during the meeting, and decided to move forward. |
65 |
Decision was made. Reverting it (in this case) is a glep thing. |
66 |
|
67 |
Asking the council to reconsider something, well, no procedure |
68 |
(frankly I don't think one is needed either), but it would have to be |
69 |
something that occurs on normal schedule, and would be dependant on |
70 |
the council agreeing to reopen discussion. Considering the nature of |
71 |
this scenario, I *still* posit it's glep territory, through and |
72 |
through. |
73 |
|
74 |
Note that last paragraph is not from any documentation- just a dump of |
75 |
what I think would be wise/best. |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
|
79 |
Everything following really should be chunked off into another thread |
80 |
to iron it out, since it's not glep41 related (although g41 is the |
81 |
catalyst for it). |
82 |
|
83 |
> > re-read it, not implying you are, what I'm stating is that no _group_ |
84 |
> > should have the ability to effectively force the council to |
85 |
> > revert/revote on a decision. Doing so means the council loses the |
86 |
> > ability to have issues passed up to it, and have it agreed upon gentoo |
87 |
> > wide, and have people actually move forward on something. |
88 |
> > |
89 |
> > Portage shouldn't have it, nor devrel, nor QA, nor infra (obviously my |
90 |
> > opinion). |
91 |
> > |
92 |
> > And yes, I'm well aware some day a brain dead glep may get forced |
93 |
> > onto the portage group, in which case feel free to taunt me with those |
94 |
> > words. I'll still stand by my statement from above, despite whatever |
95 |
> > nasty thoughts may be running through my head. :) |
96 |
> We're all busy, and we're all prone to miss details of happenings that |
97 |
> go on. If infra is going to need to implement something, I would prefer |
98 |
> the folks involved to either email us directly, or come in our channel |
99 |
> talk with with us directly about their proposal. I know I could have |
100 |
> followed the email/glep to get this information, but as you have seen, |
101 |
> we have busy lives outside of Gentoo and can't keep up with everything. |
102 |
> The proper thing for them to do would ask us directly about the proposal |
103 |
|
104 |
> instead of just assuming we watch every single flame email we see on -dev. |
105 |
Personally, I agree within limits. It's not the case currently |
106 |
though (eg, it's not grounds for forcing a reverse of their decision |
107 |
imo). |
108 |
|
109 |
> > Which opens up an interesting question of how to get the council to do |
110 |
> > a re-vote on something, something that should be a _general_ process |
111 |
> > if implemented, not "we have to implement this, but we think it has |
112 |
> > issues so it should be re-examined". |
113 |
> |
114 |
> We need to have safe guards in place so that infra doesn't get catch |
115 |
> like this again. I have stated many times that I know that the |
116 |
> information was out there for us to see, but we are human and have real |
117 |
> lives. We simply cannot catch everything that goes by. I ask for any |
118 |
> request like this in the future has a direct conversation with infra so |
119 |
> we see the proposal for sure. |
120 |
|
121 |
This is one lack of the council compared to managers; with managers, |
122 |
at least for infra/portage their were members on the board who |
123 |
(usually) knew what was what, and could raise the concerns. |
124 |
|
125 |
It also gave undue power to infra/portage, although that's more of a |
126 |
flaw of the TLP setup. Current council _could_ stand to integrate |
127 |
some form of checkup from groups, but I'd be extremely unhappy if it |
128 |
was any form of actual power, versus just consulting/questioning. |
129 |
|
130 |
Either way, modify the existing setup is fine, just be aware we're |
131 |
bound by it's rules _now_ till it's modified. |
132 |
~harring |