| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:58:03 +0900 |
| 2 |
Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:28:17 PM JST, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 5 |
> > wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Doug Freed wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >>> Therefore, I'm specifically asking the council to remove the |
| 9 |
> >>> ambiguity in the language and pick one clear meaning. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> The council has no jurisdiction over GLEP 39 and cannot change its |
| 12 |
> >> wording. GLEP 39 defines our metastructure, including the council |
| 13 |
> >> itself, and was approved by an all devs vote. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > While this thought did occur to me, the topic seems trivial enough |
| 17 |
> > that it would be silly to have a constitutional crisis over it. All |
| 18 |
> > the deliberations over the Trustees/Council/SPI stuff might fall |
| 19 |
> > into that category, but what to do over projects that lack a lead? |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > And if we did decide that we don't want to touch it, that basically |
| 22 |
> > leaves us in a de facto situation where projects don't need to |
| 23 |
> > elect a |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> So, I am not quite sure what you mean by whether the council gets to |
| 26 |
> "decide" if they want to touch the topic or not. You don't really |
| 27 |
> have a choice in the matter. Ulrich's facts were quite clear. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Are you under the delusion that you and the council get to choose |
| 30 |
> such things? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> It seems the developer community at large may need to revisit and |
| 33 |
> vote on such a change for GLEP39. Assuming it is deemed important |
| 34 |
> enough to pursue. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
The Council has already amended GLEP 39 without a wider vote... What |
| 37 |
makes you think they can't decide to do so again? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives