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 1OP8sM-0003yT-I8 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:46:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 767A3E0AA4; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0FDE08CD for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (fi122.internetdsl.tpnet.pl [80.53.34.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C181B40B9 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:46:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4C19C4C4.7080606@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:46:28 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 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 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Tone in Gentoo References: <4C184607.5080907@gentoo.org> <4C18FE36.7040700@gentoo.org> <4C1965C0.9070304@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig963592B21FDCCCD3868D901D" X-Archives-Salt: 33ed7cd9-859c-4340-badd-1b8b302b5c15 X-Archives-Hash: ae25ec8c5f49a359fd4964721bcc41b9 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig963592B21FDCCCD3868D901D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/17/10 3:13 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> There was a mostly silent agreement between some teams, [...] > This is very worrying. Such things should never be a silent agreement. > This needs to be open and transparent. This is policy that needs to be > explicit. +100 I think we should pay more attention to documenting important policies. It just happens too often when people are confused by something, and then somebody pops up and says "it's obvious, see our unstated policy". This is not to be understood as an attempt to policy everything. No. I'd prefer to have less policies, but well documented and agreed on by everybody. Pawe=C5=82 --------------enig963592B21FDCCCD3868D901D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) iEUEARECAAYFAkwZxMkACgkQuUQtlDBCeQKacACfZETZI1dKZskv8AA9n6n9WkK0 5akAmNMdVlSeaESX0roeme/+CgKjoxg= =Cc7o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig963592B21FDCCCD3868D901D--