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 1JxW5U-0006um-Le for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 May 2008 23:45:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D2AB4E0341; Sat, 17 May 2008 23:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aibo.runbox.com (aibo.runbox.com [193.71.199.94]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEAFE0341 for ; Sat, 17 May 2008 23:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.9.9.161] (helo=patch.runbox.com ident=Debian-exim) by greyhound.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JxW5S-00038o-Kj for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 May 2008 01:45:14 +0200 Received: from [81.107.44.109] (helo=[192.168.1.104]) by patch.runbox.com with esmtpa (uid:111578 ) (Exim 4.63) id 1JxW5S-0001LZ-Em for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 May 2008 01:45:14 +0200 Message-ID: <482F6E5D.1010008@runbox.com> Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 00:46:37 +0100 From: Simon Cooper User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting References: <20080508233328.GA8896@comet> <20080515204913.GA22285@comet> <20080515220543.5c5a2c03@snowcone> <482CB0B2.6090702@gentoo.org> <20080516164612.GA14234@comet> <482DF281.6010208@gentoo.org> <20080516213454.538ce4e8@anaconda.krait.us> <7c612fc60805161611w48d9e134m7437c4a29f33d79a@mail.gmail.com> <20080517001849.4802ceec@googlemail.com> <7c612fc60805161650w46ceb2a3sa8f60c71886c881f@mail.gmail.com> <20080517005317.2dc1c8e1@googlemail.com> <482E30EF.4090207@gentoo.org> <482F2826.90001@gentoo.org> <482F36F6.3080203@gentoo.org> <87skwglev5.fsf@phoenix.asynchronous.org> In-Reply-To: <87skwglev5.fsf@phoenix.asynchronous.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=881C4F06 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9aea7f52-1ff7-456c-a95d-8f19d22d9b18 X-Archives-Hash: 08295b7c03168fd327ec24e6ba366d04 As a random user, could I just make a couple of points? I think it is agreed that the GLEP says there should be a re-election; the current discussion is to whether the GLEP should be followed. May I ask what the point of the GLEP was if parts of it are going to be ignored on a whim? Yes, it is harsh, but that is what the rules say. Not obeying your /own/ rules when they are inconvenient sets a very bad precedent. If, at some point in the future, gentoo does get a slacker council, then when faced with being replaced they could say something like 'but you ignored the GLEP at this instance, and this is the same situation because of yadda yadda yadda...'. Even if what's being said is complete rubbish it will significantly slow down the process of getting a new council simply because there has been this one exception made. Furthermore, the reason given (there wasn't enough advertising about the meeting given out) is quite nebulous - 'enough advertising' can mean /anything/. Making this one exception also makes it easier for greater exceptions in the future (the whole 'slipperly slope' argument). If people don't like the clause, then the new council can vote to remove it. No one would disagree with that. But you _cannot_ simply ignore parts of GLEPs that turn out to be inconvenient. Doing so sets a bad precedent that could be a lot more damaging to gentoo in the future than the small inconvenience of having a council election a couple of months early, and indeed undermines the GLEP itself as something that is seen as optional. It will also ensure all council meetings are properly advertised in the future, which can only be a good thing. Simon Cooper -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list