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 1HZNlM-0000OL-AQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:56:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l358sgXT018358; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:54:42 GMT Received: from outmail1.freedom2surf.net (outmail1.freedom2surf.net [194.106.33.237]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l358orfe012528 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:50:53 GMT Received: from snowflake (82-41-57-20.cable.ubr08.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [82.41.57.20]) by outmail1.freedom2surf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2ECB51145 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:26:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:26:41 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April Message-ID: <20070405092641.00676b6d@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <20070404201717.GB25883@feynman.corp.halliburton.com> References: <20070401092940.1B4C26441E@smtp.gentoo.org> <20070404193643.GA7174@ubik> <20070404201717.GB25883@feynman.corp.halliburton.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.8.1 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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="Sig_uBsj8mm6m//fPTDl+pG_YOu"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 7d45fe80-d4ec-4bfe-a1a4-f878a81e145a X-Archives-Hash: 16bfa3d8e1f328804287613b330629ff --Sig_uBsj8mm6m//fPTDl+pG_YOu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:17:18 -0500 Grant Goodyear wrote: > Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT] > > I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be > > discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council > > power, since it seems there is nothing to this effect in the > > metastructure glep.=20 >=20 > For what it's worth, I deliberately wrote the GLEP that way. The > truth of the matter is that the Council has only whatever power the > devs permit, so adding additional restrictions seems like a really bad > idea to me. Right. Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any Council meeting logs be made public would be useful, with a waiver that the Council can have a secret meeting if it officially announces that it is doing so? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_uBsj8mm6m//fPTDl+pG_YOu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGFLLD96zL6DUtXhERAh7WAKC/WPzH5+VmPP4Sl/P3vHK9OfvoZQCfVYZO BmTCCwec9IJlVY5KvgzA/c4= =luWT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_uBsj8mm6m//fPTDl+pG_YOu-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list