From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M5bke-0000By-Ks for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 17 May 2009 08:29:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 153E6E047E; Sun, 17 May 2009 08:29:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailfilter6.ihug.co.nz (mailfilter6.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.6]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8117E047E for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 08:29:36 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlQBAL+LX0l2XJyM/2dsb2JhbAAIyXKFcoFp X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,207,1241352000"; d="scan'208";a="97483271" Received: from 118-92-156-140.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz (HELO [192.168.0.3]) ([118.92.156.140]) by smtp.mailfilter6.ihug.co.nz with ESMTP; 17 May 2009 20:29:35 +1200 Message-ID: <4A0FCAED.2090700@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 20:29:33 +1200 From: Alistair Bush User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090325) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: yngwin@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55 References: <200905142006.51998.patrick@gentoo.org> <4A0C790A.1050209@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4A0C790A.1050209@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d44c5138-4a75-4845-a48c-1fec8c2e9687 X-Archives-Hash: e6c22625fe5bf5a01a63f93d8ed1e853 Ben de Groot wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the >> mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55. >> [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html] >> >> The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, > > This, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter. Most of us apparently > are not sufficiently convinced that there actually is a problem. Until > the problem is explained with clarity, the rest of the proposal is useless. > >> "Obviously you don't understand the issue, because if you did you'd support >> it!" > > I concur that speaking for myself, I don't understand the issue. And it > looks like many others don't either. So if anyone wants to promote this > GLEP, their job is clear: make people understand what the issue is here, > and convince them it is actually an issue. (Examples, scenarios usually > work well, indeed a lot better than calling people names.) Is it really necessary to convince the entire community for every GLEP? I thought that the reason we have the council is so they can make decisions. You know specialization of decision making. If the council is going to expect anyone else, besides themselves, to understand an issue then why have the council. > >> And maybe we can now spend the same amount of >> council-time (it has been eating time for over a year!) to get important >> things done ... > > I want to call on the Council to reject this GLEP in its current form, > as the problem has been insufficiently clarified. We should not waste > more time on it. I would like the Council to either accept, reject or send the GLEP back to be clarified if _THEY_ believe it has been insufficiently clarified to enable _THEM_ to understand the GLEP. > > Cheers,