1 |
On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:55:46 -0400 |
2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 16:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:42:08 -0400 |
5 |
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > If it's not a GLEP then what is it then? What are we following or |
8 |
> > > not? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > That's already been answered in this thread far too many times. |
11 |
> > Please read before posting. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I have read and re-read. It's only until recent postings/comments are |
14 |
> we starting to say this is not a GLEP. It's not part of the Bylaws. |
15 |
> So what is it? How official is it? Who enforces it? |
16 |
|
17 |
It's effectively in a class of its own. So far as I know, it's the only |
18 |
policy document that's been accepted based upon a global vote. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Re-reading, just brings me across more reference to it being a GLEP. |
21 |
|
22 |
It's referred to as 'GLEP 39' because that's where you find it. This is |
23 |
unfortunate. |
24 |
|
25 |
> Also if it's a constitution, or such for the council. Why is like ~70% |
26 |
> of the document, talking about the past. Personal point of view from |
27 |
> those writing the document. Things other than what section B is, and |
28 |
> declares. |
29 |
|
30 |
What's now called 'GLEP 39' was originally an emailed proposal written |
31 |
by Grant as one of the things upon which developers could vote, with a |
32 |
second email from me proposing the slacker clauses merged in. |
33 |
|
34 |
The actual proposal voted in by developers was a text file in my ~ on |
35 |
dev.g.o, which was just Grant's email with my additions. |
36 |
|
37 |
> If more time was spent on clarifying section B, and less on talking |
38 |
> about the past, problems, personal input/opinion. Things that would |
39 |
> make this a much more official document, what ever it is. Then this |
40 |
> mess would not exist, and we would have set policies and procedures to |
41 |
> follow. |
42 |
|
43 |
But that wasn't what was voted in. |
44 |
|
45 |
> Instead we have a partial punishment, that doesn't mention at all |
46 |
> how to go about enforcing it. As in council is stripped of power. |
47 |
|
48 |
It says exactly how to go about enforcing it. An election has to be |
49 |
held within a month of the meeting, in the same way that otherwise the |
50 |
council has to hold an election once a year. |
51 |
|
52 |
> Does the current council, still hold/wield any power from now until |
53 |
> they are replaced? What is the extent/limitations of that power in the |
54 |
> intern? |
55 |
|
56 |
There's nothing about that in the accepted proposal. |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Ciaran McCreesh |