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 1Qp4DR-0007Ll-E4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:08:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E747D21C204; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D325A21C1F0 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (wl-dy-169-228-178-213.ucsd.edu [169.228.178.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dberkholz) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58F782AC011 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:08:06 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years Message-ID: <20110804200806.GF4840@comet.ucsd.edu> References: <20110801184751.GS20656@gentoo.org> <4E3735C8.6000500@gentoo.org> <20110802063633.GB20656@gentoo.org> <20110802154256.GA5661@linux1> <20110802161558.GD20656@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kbCYTQG2MZjuOjyn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110802161558.GD20656@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: b54b6a84f451dfb89d69884822ffa32f --kbCYTQG2MZjuOjyn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 18:15 Tue 02 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain chan= ge > > > to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the > > > supporting material for the change. > >=20 > > But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for glep > > 39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a majority > > of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council > > doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. In > > other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. Is > > that what you are intending? >=20 > I think yes, if the council regarding GLEP39 thinks A, but the dev > population B, then it is unlikely the council will vote for B. However, > the dev population should vote for other council members that do support > B for the next term in that case. I think the whole idea is rather absurd that the council could disagree=20 with a change to GLEP 39 and thus prevent it from going to a=20 developer-wide vote, even though they don't think they have the=20 authority to change the GLEP. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com --kbCYTQG2MZjuOjyn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk46/CYACgkQXVaO67S1rttD0ACgnw49uheMdrq07Ng5hVGNLAkS ESwAn3i8JtWBhRfjARMGnquA/yAkSTC3 =AhHH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kbCYTQG2MZjuOjyn--