| 1 |
On 07/04/19 19:46, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 7/4/19 10:33 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Note that (1) above is pretty vague, which is where i think all the leeway |
| 4 |
>> comes into place in terms of the power the community lets the council have |
| 5 |
>> (regardless of the actual text of the GLEP). It reminds me of the Commerce |
| 6 |
>> Clause[3] in the US where the literal text of the amendment gives the |
| 7 |
>> government broad regulatory authority. In the case of Gentoo, the Council's |
| 8 |
>> authority extends only so far as the community tolerates them classifying |
| 9 |
>> problems as 'global' (which is their clear purview) vs a local problem, |
| 10 |
>> where its clearly the domain of a project lead or individual developer. I |
| 11 |
>> don't expect a clearly written policy to cover all the ground here (because |
| 12 |
>> there is too much ground to cover.) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> the requirement for an issue to be global isn't a very high bar. e.g an |
| 15 |
> expectation for a negative PR feedback from outsiders of Gentoo makes an |
| 16 |
> issue global per se, so I still stick to my original answer. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
Using "I posit that someone might say something bad about $thing" as |
| 19 |
grounds to make a "global issue" out of $thing is indeed not a high bar, |
| 20 |
it is handwaving of the cheap undefined hypothetical variety, and if |
| 21 |
that is really all that makes some consideration a "global issue" then |
| 22 |
whoever made the claim in the first place has nothing but a poor |
| 23 |
argument to make their claims on. Such claims seem rather more like a |
| 24 |
petty waste of everyone's time than a substantive reason to involve the |
| 25 |
council. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In case that was ambiguous, I mean both in theory and in practice. |
Archives