| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Doug Freed wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Therefore, I'm specifically asking the council to remove the |
| 5 |
>> ambiguity in the language and pick one clear meaning. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The council has no jurisdiction over GLEP 39 and cannot change its |
| 8 |
> wording. GLEP 39 defines our metastructure, including the council |
| 9 |
> itself, and was approved by an all devs vote. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
While this thought did occur to me, the topic seems trivial enough |
| 13 |
that it would be silly to have a constitutional crisis over it. All |
| 14 |
the deliberations over the Trustees/Council/SPI stuff might fall into |
| 15 |
that category, but what to do over projects that lack a lead? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And if we did decide that we don't want to touch it, that basically |
| 18 |
leaves us in a de facto situation where projects don't need to elect a |
| 19 |
lead, since GLEP39 did not make any provisions for enforcing that |
| 20 |
requirement, and heaven forbid somebody take the initiative to come up |
| 21 |
with one because GLEP39... :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
However, I don't think we need to revise GLEP39 so much as point out |
| 24 |
how it has been working in practice, comment on it, or clarify its |
| 25 |
meaning. I suppose if somebody else takes strong objection they can |
| 26 |
lead the constitutional rebellion. :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives