Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@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: Sat, 17 May 2008 00:14:28
Message-Id: 1210983262.11425.3.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 23:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:39:03 -0400
3 > Richard Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> wrote:
4 > > Ferris McCormick wrote:
5 > > > And as I've said before, if we think a policy doesn't make sense, we
6 > > > can change it. But changing a policy that affects Council and then
7 > > > applying it retroactively gets tricky, because Council themselves
8 > > > are part of the approval process.
9 > >
10 > > Nothing too tricky - council votes that the GLEP is to be modified
11 > > retroactively. A few folks complain. Life goes on.
12 >
13 > They don't have that authority. GLEP 39 wasn't approved as a GLEP. It
14 > was approved by global vote, and retroactively written up as a GLEP
15 > to make it easy to reference and find.
16
17 Interesting that the word global keeps being used. I noticed the
18 rule/policy we are discussion is under
19
20 B. Global issues will be decided by an elected Gentoo council.
21
22 Also where does it state the council does not have the power to change
23 GLEP 39? Or that changes to it must be done by a global vote of
24 developers, and not council members?
25
26 --
27 William L. Thomson Jr.
28 amd64/Java/Trustees
29 Gentoo Foundation

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature