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 1O0ygc-0004gV-6M for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:02:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EA93E0970; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.141]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86F5E0923; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:02:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O0ygV-00031o-9s; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:02:51 +0000 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:02:41 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy regarding the inactive members To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <201004111616.41414.hwoarang@gentoo.org> (from hwoarang@gentoo.org on Sun Apr 11 14:16:37 2010) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.1 Message-Id: <1270998170.4030.0@NeddySeagoon> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="=-BuVw0K2gk+t0uGpENz9e" X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: 7908ace3-d722-4803-baf7-d18858e69447 X-Archives-Hash: 04a7c181c955777601511958ae4589fa --=-BuVw0K2gk+t0uGpENz9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2010.04.11 14:16, Markos Chandras wrote: > Hello folks, >=20 > Looking through the Council project page, the policy regarding the > inactive=20 > council members doesn't look optimal to me >=20 > "To ensure that the council stays active, the chosen metastructure > model says=20 > that if a council member (or their appointed proxy) fails to show up > for two=20 > consecutive meetings, they are marked as a slacker." [snip] Markos, Thats from GLEP39. The council has already ruled that they cannot=20 change GLEP39 without a general vote of all Gentoo devs. This suggests you need to present your proposals as an amendment to=20 GLEP39 and that all devs need to vote on it. Others have already pointed out a few issues with your proposal, so=20 I'll stop there. --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees --=-BuVw0K2gk+t0uGpENz9e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkvB5JoACgkQTE4/y7nJvatkxwCcCxlEPPLDEvvo7tGLAR5HPAX8 2BgAoOTEwyaSpY2/wcoSOfhI7qzdjLFn =TUHZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-BuVw0K2gk+t0uGpENz9e--