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 1HZRjX-0000Ji-HR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:10:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l35D9fld022161; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:09:41 GMT Received: from smtp02.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (smtp-out2.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net [70.43.63.19]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l35D7oTr019952 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:07:50 GMT Received: from [10.3.23.140] (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp02.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l35D7lut011773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:07:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1175775560.5984.15.camel@localhost> References: <20070401092940.1B4C26441E@smtp.gentoo.org> <20070404193643.GA7174@ubik> <20070404201717.GB25883@feynman.corp.halliburton.com> <20070404232844.GB7174@ubik> <7c612fc60704050429p27151192v2e0949c82fc7f6fc@mail.gmail.com> <1175775560.5984.15.camel@localhost> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-zp81pWo/58V9W0Y1U+tS" Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:07:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1175778463.8641.0.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> 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: 08787684-95e8-4d25-b00e-84eb6304f151 X-Archives-Hash: cf99bf6b46aad514514668713629e7a3 --=-zp81pWo/58V9W0Y1U+tS Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:19 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > 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. >=20 > 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. Correct. Currently, the Council (or anyone, really) would have to do something to endanger our copyrights, trademarks, or our legal standing for the trustees to do anything. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-zp81pWo/58V9W0Y1U+tS 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) iD8DBQBGFPSfkT4lNIS36YERAgwbAJ9Ll8QGnG1GsRzPycwE/kqD98gEDgCfUcL5 f3xk4beMC/O7Y24v0V/n5G0= =Jqd6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-zp81pWo/58V9W0Y1U+tS-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list