Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Aaron Bauman]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:28:17 PM JST, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Doug Freed wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore, I'm specifically asking the council to remove the
>>> ambiguity in the language and pick one clear meaning.
>>
>> The council has no jurisdiction over GLEP 39 and cannot change its
>> wording. GLEP 39 defines our metastructure, including the council
>> itself, and was approved by an all devs vote.
>>
>
> While this thought did occur to me, the topic seems trivial enough
> that it would be silly to have a constitutional crisis over it.  All
> the deliberations over the Trustees/Council/SPI stuff might fall into
> that category, but what to do over projects that lack a lead?
>
> And if we did decide that we don't want to touch it, that basically
> leaves us in a de facto situation where projects don't need to elect a

So, I am not quite sure what you mean by whether the council gets to 
"decide" if they want to touch the topic or not.  You don't really have a 
choice in the matter.  Ulrich's facts were quite clear.

Are you under the delusion that you and the council get to choose such 
things?

It seems the developer community at large may need to revisit and vote on 
such a change for GLEP39.  Assuming it is deemed important enough to 
pursue.

> lead, since GLEP39 did not make any provisions for enforcing that
> requirement, and heaven forbid somebody take the initiative to come up
> with one because GLEP39...  :)
>
> However, I don't think we need to revise GLEP39 so much as point out
> how it has been working in practice, comment on it, or clarify its
> meaning.  I suppose if somebody else takes strong objection they can
> lead the constitutional rebellion.  :)
>