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 4.50) id 1EdKHH-0007vM-GH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:24:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJ4NuTR016600; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:23:56 GMT Received: from ns2.osuosl.org (ns2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJ4M4LH016822 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:22:05 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ns2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699DD121A57 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:22:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ns1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02236-25 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:22:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-67-168-254-71.hsd1.or.comcast.net [67.168.254.71]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ns2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA99121A42 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:22:03 -0800 (PST) From: Corey Shields To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:22:00 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost> <20051118232924.GK12982@mail.lieber.org> <437E67E7.4040007@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <437E67E7.4040007@gentoo.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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511182022.00662.cshields@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at osuosl.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: a42e085e-a5ac-4257-ba90-8b1662c67875 X-Archives-Hash: c5731445cd63b0e7036e2dab0153b35e On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this > considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm > curious the reasoning for going ahead with this? So.. I'm hearing that the GLEP was submitted, then a day before the vote it was revised.. Is that true? It should be voted on the way that it was submitted. No riders. If it needs to be revised post-submission, then such submission should be revoked. Someone should write a GLEP to propose rules to the GLEP votes. :P -- Corey Shields Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list