Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2015-01-13: call for agenda items

[hasufell]

Dean Stephens:
> On 12/30/14 09:25, hasufell wrote:
>> Dean Stephens:
>>> On 12/29/14 15:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> I'll certainly agree that not everything needs a formal project.
>>>> However, if a project wants to have authority/autonomy beyond
>>>> anything-goes, then it should welcome members and elect a lead
>>>> regularly.
>>>>
>>> There is at least a defensible argument to be made that being able to
>>> reject applicants is more important to being able to maintain a coherent
>>> project than the often indicated duty to accept anyone who shows interest.
>>>
>>
>> What about projects that don't even reject, but rather ignore
>> devs/contributors?
>>
> If they have a maintained project page, have elected a lead in the past
> 12 months, and that lead is otherwise active; take it for what it is:
> rejection [1]. Otherwise, they either need to elect a new lead or allow
> the project to dissolve, according to GLEP 39 [2].
>
>> We tell them to elect a new lead, so we don't have to deal with the
>> people who screwed up, but can say "here, they formally are a functional
>> project according to a random glep... problem solved".
>>
>>
> So, the document specifying the organizational structure of Gentoo as a
> whole [2, again] is just "a random glep" now? Is anyone supposed to take
> that rhetoric seriously or were you attempting to use humor? Either make
> a concrete proposal to update or entirely supersede the existing project
> structure or work within it, merely complaining about it is pointless.
>

You did not get the point. The point is that the problem is not the GLEP
in the first place. By forging just the GLEP, you will not get the
problem solved.

And I have been very specific indeed.