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 1LcllS-0004Yf-7q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:19:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46A72E0338; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:19:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276D3E0338 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:19:21 +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 82B2664788; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:19:20 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: council@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for February 26 Message-ID: <20090226191920.GB3820@comet> References: <20090223072648.GK12339@hermes> <20090225071235.GA3923@comet> 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="8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090225071235.GA3923@comet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: fbb3c265-cd3f-49ec-8867-2814970d1558 X-Archives-Hash: 8125876cd6a1e7c3cea3385f02c1ea6f --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23:12 Tue 24 Feb , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Here's the preliminary agenda. I'm running a bit behind on -dev, so=20 > it's a little out of date re GLEPs 54/55. People including lu_zero,=20 > cardoe, dev-zero, and tanderson should fill us in on things below that=20 > they've taken responsibility for. Anyone else can chime in anywhere! I'm not prepared to decide on the whole set of solutions related to GLEP=20 55 yet. I need more time to think about them, and since new options are=20 showing up frequently, it makes that pretty hard. Here's what action I'd=20 like to see regarding the whole thing: Petteri, Tiziano, and Alec agree to work together to update & maintain a=20 single document describing our requirements, the potential solutions,=20 how well they address the requirements, and what the downsides (and any=20 other upsides) are. If just 1-2 of them want to do this, that's fine=20 too. All 3 of them have written something along these lines already,=20 which is why I suggest them. > GLEP 54: handling code from SCMs better > --------------------------------------- >=20 > Some discussion on list. Luca, can you sum up the state of things? Still waiting on a summary ... perhaps if Luca's too busy, our wonderful=20 new secretary could do something along the lines of the above doc? Making choices without a clear and straightforward comparison of options=20 right next to each other is not the greatest. So the actions I propose=20 for today's meeting are: - Approve new council member - Get people to agree to get a doc w/ requirements & comparisons for: - GLEP 54 (Luca or Thomas?) - GLEP 55 (Petteri/Tiziano/Alec) --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmm6zgACgkQXVaO67S1rtvzMQCg/u3HnoBzvb0kfWT/cPKUA+K+ eW4AnRyxDklfP6TwVy5otuJSL2rzSizv =dpyc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ--