From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HZQyN-00046l-R7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:21:52 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l35CKsvW001825; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:20:54 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l35CIsCu031902 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:18:55 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.138] (c-66-30-3-184.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [66.30.3.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADBC64E78 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:18:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April From: Seemant Kulleen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <7c612fc60704050429p27151192v2e0949c82fc7f6fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070401092940.1B4C26441E@smtp.gentoo.org> <20070404193643.GA7174@ubik> <20070404201717.GB25883@feynman.corp.halliburton.com> <20070404232844.GB7174@ubik> <7c612fc60704050429p27151192v2e0949c82fc7f6fc@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-jz4BpXChs3Kxvs9C2ijI" Organization: Gentoo Foundation Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:19:20 -0400 Message-Id: <1175775560.5984.15.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 X-Archives-Salt: 35d0c909-0b3b-477e-bc77-3733c673d4d9 X-Archives-Hash: 36ccdb3b548e10d59e42157ab563af11 --=-jz4BpXChs3Kxvs9C2ijI Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does > not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would > permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo. > This is very little red tape IMHO. I believe that the trustees do not necessarily have any jurisdiction over the council. They are concerned with legal type matters that affect the foundation, not with technical and political things within Gentoo itself. I could be wrong about this, but that's how I read it. Thanks, Seemant --=-jz4BpXChs3Kxvs9C2ijI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGFOlIiUTIoXwgiI0RAkFVAJ9zFAB0x9c24AYBM/OstWCE0JFy4ACfee0V W7Wwzr0Y9ShAOwrormgeQcc= =F0hR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-jz4BpXChs3Kxvs9C2ijI-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list