From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JAtj2-0004mz-Oi for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:05:09 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id m04L4BF5010099; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:04:11 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m04L2Jbd007845 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:02:20 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578908D306 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 22:08:04 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ferdyx.org Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno.ferdyx.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ANud6XxqVIj0 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 22:08:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from snowcone (unknown [213.121.151.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947998D305 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 22:08:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:02:13 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January Message-ID: <20080104210213.50a99e6b@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <63044.68.54.223.178.1199445791.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> References: <20080101103002.083C4652C4@smtp.gentoo.org> <54551.192.168.2.159.1199365359.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <477D75CA.1030003@gentoo.org> <20080104000155.23e056b4@snowcone> <20080104004653.039f488e@snowcone> <20080104012750.63f4f23a@snowcone> <63044.68.54.223.178.1199445791.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.12.1; x86_64-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_/A+noiYRf//+UusJ2y=pRBGz"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 947118b0-0856-4ab8-86f4-872ce8f9792b X-Archives-Hash: c2181d9a245d32f67090d93d6ae2d8c1 --Sig_/A+noiYRf//+UusJ2y=pRBGz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:23:11 -0500 (EST) "Caleb Tennis" wrote: > > Most of the time, when people are moaning about 'slacker' archs, > > they don't have any kind of decent technical reason for doing so... > > In cases where such a reason exists, the arch teams are usually > > quite happy to prioritise if asked. >=20 > And the point of me asking for the council to talk about this is to > set some kind of guidelines for what happens after you've asked X > number of times and let Y number of days go by, where X and Y are > amounts open for discussion. X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the impact of leaving things the way they are. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/A+noiYRf//+UusJ2y=pRBGz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHfp7Y96zL6DUtXhERAjf1AJ4y4tIKUyTw6mr+UDQ0w2V5KvL0rwCffcSR C81VAimRjKtVWEGHcZCtMIE= =VzuZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/A+noiYRf//+UusJ2y=pRBGz-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list