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 1EdZqy-000489-Da for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:02:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJL1h5g013371; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:01:43 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 jAJKxsTj023524 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:59:54 GMT Received: from p83.129.14.47.tisdip.tiscali.de ([83.129.14.47] helo=[192.168.101.99]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EdZoL-0000ws-7M; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:59:50 +0000 Message-ID: <437F93A3.9080808@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:05:39 +0100 From: Danny van Dyk User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050901) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, 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 CC: Corey Shields Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain References: <1132333748.8524.9.camel@localhost> <200511182022.00662.cshields@gentoo.org> <437EAABE.5050502@gentoo.org> <200511182042.30961.cshields@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200511182042.30961.cshields@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-6; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 13894515-d0ed-4c86-9142-cb784202976d X-Archives-Hash: bed60f6518b6f004fb8b3cfed1e20cd9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Corey Shields schrieb: | On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: | |>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). | | | Ahh, ok thanks for clearing that up. | | Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the | council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then | push it | through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics. Oh please Corey... Now you sound like a pissed kid. Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said: a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted in in the first meeting. b) they stated that this is the first and the last time that a GLEP will be voted on if that hasn't been discussed sufficiently long enough on -dev c) that new limitations for a vote are: send (revised) glep to gentoo-dev (at least) 14 days before the next council meeting, ask (at least) 7 days before the meeting for vote. (For this you can also read seemants mail announcing the availability of the logs) Danny - -- Danny van Dyk Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDf5OjaVNL8NrtU6IRAhzLAJ9Bi1xUcRj7kKE2MWaP8NbceOxuqACcDOy3 t+G1qlkXwKytmLz4Lt/Rox8= =PeVH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list