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 4.50) id 1EdKRd-0006mo-SZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:35:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJ4Yalu007462; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:34:36 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJ4Vxs3027667 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:31:59 GMT Received: from ip68-102-201-166.ks.ok.cox.net ([68.102.201.166] helo=[10.3.1.219]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EdKON-0002AQ-3F for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:31:59 +0000 Message-ID: <437EAABE.5050502@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:31:58 -0600 From: Lance Albertson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost> <20051118232924.GK12982@mail.lieber.org> <437E67E7.4040007@gentoo.org> <200511182022.00662.cshields@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200511182022.00662.cshields@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig6E0C3256CF1C2C4500641798" X-Archives-Salt: 250fd8d4-afa6-4d1e-b0ac-de5233e21077 X-Archives-Hash: 091c6b25a975e9db24123d684e87862e This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig6E0C3256CF1C2C4500641798 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Corey Shields wrote: > On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > >>I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this >>considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm >>curious the reasoning for going ahead with this? > > > So.. I'm hearing that the GLEP was submitted, then a day before the vote it > was revised.. Is that true? It should be voted on the way that it was > submitted. No riders. If it needs to be revised post-submission, then such > submission should be revoked. No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and taken to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest meeting, it was asked that this GLEP be voted upon again. At this point, the revised version had yet to be shown on -dev for discussion. It wasn't until a day before the vote that it was sent to -dev for discussion. I just wanted to get the facts straight :-) (at least from how I know). -- Lance Albertson Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net --------------enig6E0C3256CF1C2C4500641798 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDfqq+QW+hXSf0t0IRAvCBAKC/ud2LyvoPLiOgsPGsN1pxla8ilwCgr3cU X1N3Gs4FlXcfObrfpIJxlYI= =gsD4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig6E0C3256CF1C2C4500641798-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list