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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HgR40-0002x1-TB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:52:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OJpjLr021916; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:51:45 GMT Received: from nameserver1.mcve.com (nameserver1.mcve.com [216.155.111.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OJnkTV019574 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:49:46 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.55] (shop.monetra.com [216.155.111.10]) by nameserver1.mcve.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408C41118087 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <462E5F58.3080402@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:49:44 -0400 From: Doug Goldstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) 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] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E5796.8080707@gentoo.org> <20070424203751.0eae1394@maya> In-Reply-To: <20070424203751.0eae1394@maya> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a0463c22-c2aa-4d24-a8fa-02c5942339a6 X-Archives-Hash: 2c59439b53f95694b3b7ec1ee813df32 Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400 > Doug Goldstein wrote: > > >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it >> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting. >> > > There were three council members who happened to be around at the time, > and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an > interim decision. > Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and could not wait for a regular council meeting? Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis doesn't support that. But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage. I think we are setting a VERY dangerous precedent by allowing a subset of council members to make decisions as a whole if they decide to make a decision outside of a normal session. Who were the 3? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list