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 1SA91P-00065U-5s for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:03:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C66E1E06FD for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:03:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE963E0942 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:34:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (184.Red-79-147-154.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [79.147.154.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 759391B4065 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:34:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20328.61440.866922.376617@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <20328.10318.193096.854402@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20328.10723.911441.295340@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4F68E8C1.5070709@gentoo.org> <20328.61440.866922.376617@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Vq6E0CD/Y31QJU2i/F/S" Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:34:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1332279254.19017.1.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 7eac2f7d-8f08-4ba1-84b6-afb1b070f2ad X-Archives-Hash: ff46f43d43e6e87e20a3e27d1e11ee59 --=-Vq6E0CD/Y31QJU2i/F/S Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mar, 20-03-2012 a las 22:00 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribi=C3=B3: > >>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Markos Chandras wrote: >=20 > >> Vote on EAPI specification in/for ebuilds.=20 > >> >=20 > > I am sorry but this thread is huge. What is the exact question you > > want the Council to vote on? >=20 > My idea would be that we first vote if we want to address the issue. > If this is accepted, then we would have to decide between the > different solutions that have been proposed. >=20 > We have attempted to collect all ideas here: > >=20 > Ulrich >=20 >=20 =46rom my point of view, both decisions could be made at the same meeting: 1=C2=BA Should we discuss it? -> Yes -> go to 2=C2=BA // No -> end 2=C2=BA Discuss alternatives That would safe time in case you decide to address that issue and wouldn't hurt in case you don't :) --=-Vq6E0CD/Y31QJU2i/F/S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk9o99YACgkQCaWpQKGI+9RbhgCcD/Ft53PZB9OJUnHAA6rfsaF5 f+sAn3ixwzFNSUGvB55XnOH2m4nryl5b =tIcv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Vq6E0CD/Y31QJU2i/F/S--