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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-22299-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
id 1HZQCw-000476-Q7
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:32:51 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l35BVok0018720;
Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:31:50 GMT
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.251])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l35BToHU016411
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:29:51 GMT
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b8so615179ana
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
b=ZW6XZ1kilUY+VJ+sj4M1sA0LPoVtum5iybetxn68lSLdAz+l1dIpOEt48XrpvJBlxLQOkEZuFZM+5ynEnyPRuO3e5URSlVI18FRbpzLmNAFu8rVZyl+nJyUryJR0ZXZh7PXLs1W9RTR3/6OHGcGmo0U0rxTrsB298WDJr10ZwCQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
b=Z62owQMdsu7nvsuxq3YH4ROKKYVvvuQ8PRPYWm+SMKNt4g9b14JFBr//WDRhMqKoGdKmLsTzLnJYo0VOMCRkDrrTKX2F21rdIHajjXxKr8rOacDa7wEF1OEEmEdk3m1LG62NHIEU/6z1JOLgy2IG6N7Fdly3nV/HTgXNUA6k2IE=
Received: by 10.100.91.6 with SMTP id o6mr1166044anb.1175772590248;
Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.135.12 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 04:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7c612fc60704050429p27151192v2e0949c82fc7f6fc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:29:50 +0200
From: "Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org>
Sender: denis.dupeyron@gmail.com
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
In-Reply-To: <20070404232844.GB7174@ubik>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070401092940.1B4C26441E@smtp.gentoo.org>
<20070404193643.GA7174@ubik>
<20070404201717.GB25883@feynman.corp.halliburton.com>
<20070404232844.GB7174@ubik>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 825f4176081ce7b7
X-Archives-Salt: 62c1ffd1-2242-464b-bf2d-02f78a1b4958
X-Archives-Hash: 42cb88849f5bdab9fe365fbce2660dca
On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse <nattfodd@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
> things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
> rule at all concerning limitations to the council is tying our hands in
> our back. If the council never messes up, then this rule won't ever be
> used, and if they do, we'll be happy to have this handy rather than
> having to argue for ages and being told "you elected us, so shut up
> and if you don't agree, don't vote for us next time" (which is an
> answer I actually got several times).
Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
This is very little red tape IMHO.
If it's only stupid and not harmful it will be solved naturally with
the current structure by waiting for the next elections (either at the
end of the term or because enough council members resigned due to the
situation).
Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list