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 1QqqCW-0007GJ-Nn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:34:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A99C21C3AC; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15F621C3AA for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:34:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mayo-nat4.mayo.edu [129.176.197.23]) (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 346601B400E for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:34:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:34:29 -0500 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years Message-ID: <20110809173429.GF25611@comet.mayo.edu> References: <4E3735C8.6000500@gentoo.org> <20110802063633.GB20656@gentoo.org> <20110802154256.GA5661@linux1> <20110802161558.GD20656@gentoo.org> <20110804200806.GF4840@comet.ucsd.edu> <20110805065854.GV20656@gentoo.org> <20110805074937.GB4475@comet.ucsd.edu> <20027.50754.135352.913960@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20110809140531.GC25611@comet.mayo.edu> <20110809172520.GC24618@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="eNMatiwYGLtwo1cJ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110809172520.GC24618@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 18256b275e1f4b339db4df2867e0e07a --eNMatiwYGLtwo1cJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 19:25 Tue 09 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 09-08-2011 09:05:31 -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Let's assume the following scenario: > >=20 > > The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees wit= h=20 > > the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they=20 > > must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening=20 > > nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from=20 > > proposing any changes to GLEP 39. >=20 > If the developer base wants that, it's probably not hard to find 7 > people to run for council and get elected, isn't it? I don't see the > block here. The whole point is the ridiculous idea of this difference between a=20 "community-pushed" GLEP 39 change and one promoted by a group of devs=20 who happen to have a council member leading them. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com --eNMatiwYGLtwo1cJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk5Bb6UACgkQXVaO67S1rtvcOgCeNy/osPWtPAejz5E4V2XpTiA3 r80AoJe/Mq0/gW30xGRASbiGxDW3F0Yo =LwWj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eNMatiwYGLtwo1cJ--