From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JwlGg-0005tO-16 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 May 2008 21:45:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B039BE0713; Thu, 15 May 2008 21:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FD5E0713 for ; Thu, 15 May 2008 21:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.211] (c-76-18-195-255.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [76.18.195.255]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944426623F for ; Thu, 15 May 2008 21:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20080515223058.4bc2f22d@snowcone> References: <20080515204913.GA22285@comet> <1210886879.2615.0@spike> <20080515223058.4bc2f22d@snowcone> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-F4iC4PILouZg1KQ67QXX" Organization: Gentoo Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 17:45:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1210887935.22194.62.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 X-Archives-Salt: 8f022bf4-ede7-4797-9bf1-976be1a4591f X-Archives-Hash: 9d36e21a5b44c12d4d1399f6c95002d0 --=-F4iC4PILouZg1KQ67QXX Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 22:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:27:53 +0100 > Roy Bamford wrote: > > The council have met monthly as required by the GLEP. >=20 > Nope. The GLEP requires that there's at least one open meeting per > month. It also, as a separate requirement, forces a reelection whenever > a meeting has less than 50% attendance. I think the GLEP is a little harsh there. It likely should be amended or revised. To allow them the opportunity to re-schedule the meeting. Make up for their mistake. Rather than rush straight to punishment. We all make mistakes, and I think so far they have done a good job and earned a little leeway. But I am in no way shape or form, advocating we not follow our own policies. But at the same time, we must use common sense. I think the GLEP is a good start, with some revisions it can be even better :) --=20 William L. Thomson Jr. amd64/Java/Trustees Gentoo Foundation --=-F4iC4PILouZg1KQ67QXX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkgsrv8ACgkQPrChP8zZLyalIACg0gqZcSuqBgsacNM2Ye8QRQjA ZnAAoJhmw8n0c9l4HmTjPPRFrv3kn2eI =Pn0n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-F4iC4PILouZg1KQ67QXX-- -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list