Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:11:46
Message-Id: 20080518161133.6ebff34d@anaconda.krait.us
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] by Ciaran McCreesh
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:34:24 +0100
5 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
6
7 > On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:30:26 +0200
8 > "Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@g.o> wrote:
9 > > > it might have been better to document it as 'The Council's
10 > > > Constitution' or somesuch...
11 > >
12 > > True. On the other hand it was written as a GLEP.
13 >
14 > No it wasn't. If all you have to offer is deliberate lies like this,
15 > please stay out of it.
16 >
17 > --
18 > Ciaran McCreesh
19
20 Let me try to express this slightly differently. And I was around when
21 we voted on the various proposals for the rules for Council, and I did
22 vote for the one which later became GLEP 39.
23
24 We did not vote on it as a GLEP to accept or reject. We had an
25 "election" following normal voting procedures on dev.gentoo.org, and
26 this was the winner from among several. I don't recall how the policy
27 chosen by the community was transformed into the form of a GLEP, and I
28 don't know that it matters much. If you are curious, both Grant and
29 Ciaran can answer (and doubtless a few others, both developers and
30 interested bystanders).
31
32 Thus, what is now GLEP 39 represents the developers' views of the
33 appropriate rules for Council to follow at the time of the vote (which
34 was some time in 2005, I believe). Since then, it's been sitting there
35 for all to read, and no one has ever felt the need to propose changes.
36
37 So, either people don't care about policies for Council (which does not
38 seem to be the case) or no one has ever seen any problems in the policy
39 requiring changes. This makes it a bit puzzling why it's a big deal
40 when something comes up which activates a clause in the policy (when
41 the requirement affects Council itself. After all, this entire policy
42 tells us the rules for how Council works. That's what it's about.)
43
44 - --
45 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
46 Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
47 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
48 Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
49
50 iEYEARECAAYFAkgwVTwACgkQQa6M3+I///cAVQCg1PxpOCSXbDNE0IQJv3mlWv4+
51 ijwAn29SKLcwacijA+R7hHmtQ5GxuXOb
52 =Kv+4
53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies