Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

[Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:45:53 +0200
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Roy Bamford wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On 2008.06.05 01:00, ?ukasz Damentko wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >> 
> >> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be
> >> open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008).
> > 
> > Team,
> > 
> > I don't want to nominate anyone who hasn't been nominated already.
> > I would like to address all the candidates who have or will accept
> > council nominations.
> > 
> > 1. Please tell us how/if you plan to fix GLEP 39. (You may not consider
> > it broken)
> 
> a) A GLEP 39 is a "proposal" to do/implement something and should not be
> used as a way to finally document something. So, if we want to fix it, we
> should write down a new GLEP replacing GLEP 39 and then write that
> information down where it belongs to: in proj/en/council (and/or the
> developer handbook)
> 
> b) Reading GLEP 1 you'll see that there are only two types of
> GLEPs: "Standards Track" and "Informational". One is for technical stuff
> and the other for organizational, but: "Informational GLEPs do not
> necessarily represent a Gentoo Linux community
> consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore
> Informational GLEPs or follow their advice."
> 
> So we either have to stop using GLEPs for such kind of "rules/definitions"
> OR redefine how GLEPs should be used properly for changing organizational
> processes.
> 
> We should finally stop doing cosmetic changes or we will forever struggle
> with outside people who know our rules better than we and as a result waste
> our time and energy and block our processes.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tiziano
> 

GLEP 39 is informational in that it describes council+policy.  The
actual policy was established in 2005 in a vote by the developer
community.  Thus, changes to the GLEP should be only to clarify actual
policy (and I don't know where it is written down.  I remember the
vote, but don't know who controls the actual policy document).  I
believe that policy changes would require another vote;  GLEP 39
changes should not change policy.  At least, that is my recollection and
understanding.
> 
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 

Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhKs6IACgkQQa6M3+I///cUywCghnDT7JgB9ngb44H90SKK51IX
1FgAoJMjiAu8h5fJArjSSselZ33Xxjd4
=Lq9L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----