From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LQ5Gg-0002v8-LX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:31:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5ABFE0124; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:31:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp03.tky.fi (smtp03.tky.fi [82.130.63.73]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85FACE0124 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:31:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.130.46.209] ([82.130.46.209]) by smtp03.tky.fi (SMSSMTP 4.1.9.35) with SMTP id M2009012221310412842 ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:31:04 +0200 Message-ID: <4978C99A.6030107@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:31:38 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fi; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090111 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Donnie Berkholz CC: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Council size & terms [WAS] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22 References: <20090121233526.GA15870@comet> <20090122000229.GF15870@comet> <1232644991.4164.19.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> <20090122173755.GC20446@comet> In-Reply-To: <20090122173755.GC20446@comet> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://users.tkk.fi/~praty/public.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigF8D3816AAAD8EBB8B7FC4697" X-Archives-Salt: 588aeb0b-f789-4318-b1b1-753dc0dd4ad0 X-Archives-Hash: 82e54d765cd30fa512bc58ed2ad7b0be This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF8D3816AAAD8EBB8B7FC4697 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 18:23 Thu 22 Jan , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>> Discuss on-list before meeting >>> --------------------------------------- >>> - Council meta stuff (-council) >>> - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? >>> - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? >> I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at >> least 5 council members *if* developers want to change the size. >=20 > What is your reasoning for this? >=20 I would give the devs the possibility to restrict the council size if they so want to do. >=20 > Just as a point of reference, the council has voted to change GLEP 39 i= n=20 > the past. I definitely feel that we need to hold this discussion=20 > publicly and get input from everyone. I think the council should then=20 > take all this input into consideration and vote upon it. >=20 I guess it depends on the scope of the changes. We can always vote whether we want to hold a general vote on the issue :) Regards, Petteri --------------enigF8D3816AAAD8EBB8B7FC4697 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl4yZ8ACgkQcxLzpIGCsLRdZQCfVG5zD7f0J3BO4e5xNlwC+D0L g94An2ItPgYVIPqb8l7ODbQqd0+uM9+B =tLhs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF8D3816AAAD8EBB8B7FC4697--