Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting

[Mark Loeser]

Simon Cooper <thecoop@××××××.com> said:
> Yes, it is harsh, but that is what the rules say. Not obeying your /own/
> rules when they are inconvenient sets a very bad precedent. If, at some
> point in the future, gentoo does get a slacker council, then when faced
> with being replaced they could say something like 'but you ignored the GLEP
> at this instance, and this is the same situation because of yadda yadda
> yadda...'. Even if what's being said is complete rubbish it will
> significantly slow down the process of getting a new council simply because
> there has been this one exception made. Furthermore, the reason given
> (there wasn't enough advertising about the meeting given out) is quite
> nebulous - 'enough advertising' can mean /anything/. Making this one
> exception also makes it easier for greater exceptions in the future (the
> whole 'slipperly slope' argument).
>
> If people don't like the clause, then the new council can vote to remove
> it. No one would disagree with that. But you _cannot_ simply ignore parts
> of GLEPs that turn out to be inconvenient. Doing so sets a bad precedent
> that could be a lot more damaging to gentoo in the future than the small
> inconvenience of having a council election a couple of months early, and
> indeed undermines the GLEP itself as something that is seen as optional. It
> will also ensure all council meetings are properly advertised in the
> future, which can only be a good thing.

I also just wanted to say that you pretty much summed up what I was
going to send.  As one of the people that voted on this GLEP, I like
exactly how it is written, and we voted it in based on how it was
written.  Lets follow our own rules and stop debating on this so we can
move on please.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com