Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1689 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:45:35 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.

The GLEP was deliberately harsh, and was voted in based upon that
harshness. Developers also had the option of voting for the GLEP but
without the slacker clauses, but they chose (by a substantial margin)
not to.

> 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 :)

Revisions to the GLEP pretty much require a global vote anyway, since
that was how the original GLEP was selected.

For those not aware, the "how the Council is run" stuff was decided by
global vote, not by approval of previous or current management. It
wasn't written or approved as a GLEP, but it's listed as a GLEP for
historical purposes and to make it easy to find.

Also for those not aware... The reason for the slacker clauses was that
prior to that, Gentoo was managed by a rather bizarrely selected group
of individuals (effectively, hardened and infra had representatives, the
tree didn't, for example) who mostly communicated via a closed mailing
list and who were quite happy disappearing for months on end and only
showing up when one of their pet irrelevant causes was under discussion.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]