1 |
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> Unfortunately, it seems that people are misinterpreting this |
4 |
|
5 |
I think you're underestimating the people who are participating to |
6 |
this list. They're not all twats like me. Some of us maybe didn't know |
7 |
about the history behind GLEP 39, but thanks to you kindly reminding |
8 |
them they now know. Have you at one point wondered if by any chance |
9 |
they would simply all disagree with you ? |
10 |
|
11 |
> it might have been better to document it as 'The Council's Constitution' |
12 |
> or somesuch... |
13 |
|
14 |
True. On the other hand it was written as a GLEP. And whatever the |
15 |
history behind it, there is no provision anywhere for a special |
16 |
treatment of GLEP 39. Unless you can tell us where to find this |
17 |
particular policy that I referred to as the eleventh commandment. |
18 |
|
19 |
Now let me sum up. You want the council to have a strict application |
20 |
of a policy that was written in a different time for a different issue |
21 |
than the present one. On the other hand, you don't consider the |
22 |
council has enough power to modify a GLEP based on your personal |
23 |
interpretation of the history behind the GLEP in question. We've |
24 |
certainly seen you more consistent than this before. |
25 |
|
26 |
Denis. |
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |