From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MMNmQ-0006PM-Qf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:00:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E43CDE0483; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:00:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A0FE0483 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:00:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9CC67BBF; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:00:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.208 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.208 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.391, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FFMfJ-r4rSFs; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:00:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.libexec.de (omega.libexec.de [85.214.68.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263F967BE4; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:00:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.libexec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A186A400F; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:00:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.libexec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (omega.libexec.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h9f1IG9tOf70; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:00:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.60] (dslb-084-063-202-184.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.63.202.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: tobias) by mail.libexec.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 410E83FF5; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:00:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] A Little Council Reform Anyone? From: Tobias Scherbaum To: Alec Warner Cc: Ned Ludd , gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-council In-Reply-To: References: <1246502033.5688.40.camel@localhost> <1246546445.6186.33.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ue/jL+KB6CxqHFaZ8xpT" Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:00:40 +0200 Message-Id: <1246546840.6186.35.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 X-Archives-Salt: e2fed7c1-5f64-4dac-b100-e9341734ebd9 X-Archives-Hash: 337b51311bd38fa9388122b6b1d01f03 --=-ue/jL+KB6CxqHFaZ8xpT Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alec Warner wrote: > > What I'd like to see for sure is a formal rule on who can decide to > > modify or change parts of glep 39. As it's the council's constitution > > somehow, we have two options from my pov (besides that a former council > > did decide the council itself can change it's rules): > > - a large majority (at least 5 out of 7) of council members needs to ac= k > > the change > > - changes to glep 39 require a vote with all developers participating > > and a large majority (2/3 or 3/4) needs to ack the suggested change >=20 > Just FYI, Gentoo is lucky if 1/2 of the devs vote; so I assume here > you mean large majority of the people who actually voted. Uhrm, yeah ... of course. - Tobias --=-ue/jL+KB6CxqHFaZ8xpT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkpMy5gACgkQX2bdwDDA8AX0BQCdHAmG50XdDDFbFWkaXpn4gr8l XsAAoMbvweX4QLlSb9nue4KQopUOOP/v =B14B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ue/jL+KB6CxqHFaZ8xpT--