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 1EdVIA-0001Mp-8N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:10:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJG9XMr020514; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:09:33 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJG6uD3017168 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:06:56 GMT Received: from d149204.adsl.hansenet.de ([80.171.149.204] helo=iglu.bnet.local) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EdVEu-0005KH-By for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:06:56 +0000 From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:06:47 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost> <20051119094608.0275f015@snowdrop.home> <437F05CF.7080900@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <437F05CF.7080900@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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1517204.LJZZb2zFTN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200511191706.53071.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: df810416-b9ae-4c20-a76d-564386736025 X-Archives-Hash: cd4eaa6fc5f9c852706ce9f47e5c65c3 --nextPart1517204.LJZZb2zFTN Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 19 November 2005 12:00, Thierry Carrez wrote: > The intermediary decision (during the October meeting, one month ago) > was that the GLEP would be approved, pending a list of changes. During > last month, nobody raised his voice to say this list of changes was > fundamentally flawed. Which in the gentoo-dev world, is quite outstanding. Probably because never a revised GLEP was presented?! I think the way to=20 approve a GLEP that still "needs" changes isn't acceptable. There's a lot o= f=20 information in these lists and I suppose very few ones have the time to rea= d=20 everything, so I did not read the council meeting stuff. Nevertheless, the= =20 very least to expect is that a possible final GLEP gets posted and discusse= d=20 a while before it possibly will be approved.=20 Personally I really don't care about the email address, even though I don't= =20 understand why we should unnecessarily overcomplicate things. But the way t= he=20 base (a GLEP in this case) of decisions get changed by the council behind a= ll=20 of us is misuse of power. Obviously this was noticed by the members of the= =20 council as well, but the question why you didn't postpone the decision=20 stands. The GLEP process needs to be a bit more formalized as it seems. Carsten --nextPart1517204.LJZZb2zFTN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDf02dVwbzmvGLSW8RArTxAJ0f+HVTfOG02LzklXORZZhOPuMrigCgmfif xlRarmQmlt4duBtpcO9mcgU= =SENO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1517204.LJZZb2zFTN-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list