Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Upcoming council meeting - Tuesday, 1st of February, 2000 UTC
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:09:15
Message-Id: 4D430617.5010603@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Upcoming council meeting - Tuesday, 1st of February, 2000 UTC by Donnie Berkholz
1 On 01/28/2011 04:19 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
2 > On 10:31 Wed 26 Jan , Petteri Räty wrote:
3 >> On 01/26/2011 10:19 AM, Torsten Veller wrote:
4 >>> I also see the downside of the GLEP process: If you run "Developer
5 >>> Relations" - a project not being backed up by a GLEP - you can
6 >>> change the policy as you like and don't have to ask for feedback
7 >>> from the community at all [1].
8 >>
9 >> That document was eventually approved by the council and I don't plan
10 >> on doing major modifications on my own. But there's a good point here
11 >> in that it's probably a good idea to turn that document into a GLEP.
12 >
13 > Although I agree that community input can be helpful and it's good to
14 > allow for it, I don't think it is the council's place to regulate the
15 > details of every project. We should give teams the independence and
16 > autonomy to do as we see fit — we aren't parents of 2-year-old children.
17 > (Well, I am, but she isn't yet using Gentoo.)
18 >
19
20 Not every project but here we are talking about projects that have
21 direct influence over other projects (QA, DevRel) which is normally
22 reserved only for the council.
23
24 Regards,
25 Petteri

Attachments

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

Replies