1 |
On 07/31/2014 08:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> Some options open to the council are: |
3 |
> 1. Let the games project keep its policy, and anybody who wants to |
4 |
> change this has to join the project and call for elections (the |
5 |
> council can shoe-horn members onto the project if necessary). |
6 |
> 2. Directly tweak games policy but preserve the project and its |
7 |
> scope. So, games would still have to adhere to games project policy, |
8 |
> but the Council might change specific policies (use of eclass, group, |
9 |
> etc). |
10 |
> 3. Restrict the games project scope, such as giving it authority if |
11 |
> the package maintainer elects to put it in the games herd. |
12 |
> 4. Do nothing. |
13 |
|
14 |
Do options 1 and 2 mean endorsing the Games project as "special" (eg. |
15 |
like QA or ComRel)? This is concerning, and not in the spirit of GLEP 39. |
16 |
|
17 |
Options 3 and 4 are the same. Nobody has yet been able to provide any |
18 |
evidence that the Games team has any elevated authority since GLEP 39 |
19 |
was implemented. |