| 1 |
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 14:10 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> В Вск, 18/05/2008 в 01:24 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. пишет: |
| 3 |
> > Part of the GLEP voted on, states that the policy/rule in question is |
| 4 |
> > a global one. Of which all global matters of that nature fall under |
| 5 |
> > the Council's rule. Per section B. Clearly stated. Thus the current |
| 6 |
> > council, could technically do what they felt was best, and it could be |
| 7 |
> > retroactive. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Although GLEP 39 does not states this explicitly common sense suggests |
| 10 |
> that there is zero sense in having policy for council if they can change |
| 11 |
> it retroactively. So I'd say that while not written this is implied. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Ok, so are we following common sense or policy? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If it's common sense, why would it have been so hard to clearly state |
| 16 |
and document the above? Policies are stated, not assumed. We have way to |
| 17 |
many undocumented, word of mouth, common sense policies. If we are going |
| 18 |
to run around enforcing things. It must be documented, not assumed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
FYI, IMHO common sense says we give them a chance to make up for the |
| 21 |
meeting. Before rush to punishment. So who's common sense is correct per |
| 22 |
policy? Mine or yours? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 26 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 27 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives