From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LPn2u-0001kO-57 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:03:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E6A3CE072C; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9381E072C for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (xray.science.oregonstate.edu [128.193.220.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32130647F4 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:03:38 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January Message-ID: <20090122000337.GG15870@comet> References: <20090107080758.7E657645E3@smtp.gentoo.org> <20090108050952.GD26856@hermes> <18789.39922.14252.101507@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Z0mFw3+mXTC5ycVe" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18789.39922.14252.101507@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: 2b18ff6d-f614-4273-b330-a7b8039a1213 X-Archives-Hash: 2c2e4eeac6daee6f6ee710738ca8b179 --Z0mFw3+mXTC5ycVe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07:23 Thu 08 Jan , Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >=20 > > Does anyone have additional topics for the Jan 22 meeting? >=20 > Could you cover the PMS/documentation issue of bug 250077? Or, if you > prefer to generalise, set up a procedure to resolve such conflicts? Our procedure is that if the people involved can't resolve it together,=20 they can ask council for a resolution. It seems like progress has been=20 happening in the last third or so of that bug, so I don't think we need=20 to step in unless Mike or Ciaran ask. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --Z0mFw3+mXTC5ycVe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkl3t9kACgkQXVaO67S1rtvK5ACfTTfemqorJQrRSOoqfk6NhZ0k TTgAoLwhcFEGHTK2Ui8ikDDo4iI0KUUU =GWFw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Z0mFw3+mXTC5ycVe--