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 1JyBBY-0000bw-RI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 May 2008 19:38:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8593DE03AD; Mon, 19 May 2008 19:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6947CE03AD for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 19:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([68.162.74.227]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K1400LNQRVDEU02@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 May 2008 14:38:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8F1124189; Mon, 19 May 2008 15:38:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:37:59 -0400 From: Richard Freeman Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] (fwd) In-reply-to: <20080519195024.3510ba2b@snowcone> To: Ciaran McCreesh Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <4831D717.6060908@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 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <1211216933.5605.32.camel@liasis.inforead.com> <20080519195024.3510ba2b@snowcone> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) X-Archives-Salt: 3f78e24e-2a4a-4fe3-a409-0de4d62e8d2d X-Archives-Hash: 64cf74c038e3e7f0ad7d232e9de5b250 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 19 May 2008 19:25:14 +0100 > Steve Long wrote: >> No one here is arguing that we have a slacking Council, similar to >> the "bad old days", are they? > > A Council that conveniently fails to turn up when discussing things > that either don't interest them or that might make them look bad? Once. Most likely another meeting would be on the books to address the issue if the distraction of figuring out what to do about GLEP 39 hadn't come up. > A > Council holding secret meetings and conspiring with the devrel lead > behind the rest of devrel's backs? As far as I can see - nobody is having secret meetings. Sure, council members run into each other and chat, and maybe agree on things. That isn't really a secret meeting - all organizations do that stuff. And in every organization I've been involved with it isn't considered a conspiracy when the board of directors talks to the head of a department - that is just called the chain of command. Just because we all elect the council doesn't mean that they need to consult with every dev before doing anything, although practices like discussion of topics on -dev in advance of meetings are a good thing in general. > A Council that simultaneously says > "yes, we were behind musikc's actions" and "no, it was solely musikc's > decision"? That's a lot like the old days. > Well, nobody really speaks for "the council" - you have a half-dozen devs who all have their own voices. No shock that they don't say the same thing (which might be why the avoid commenting too much directly in these threads). I think the issue here is that a few devs are taking issue with how the recent forced retirements were handled, but rather than just dealing with that issue we're debating procedural technicalities. If the issue is the dismissals - then talk about the dismissals. This isn't the US court system where Al Capone goes to jail for forgetting to declare his income from illegal activities. And we don't want to turn into Wikipedia where if somebody doesn't like somebody's wording of an article we forget discussing the matter at hand and instead debate the proper application of policy WP:PILEOFLETTERS and whether it is an adequate excuse to just delete the article. And if we're going to talk about dismissals why don't we let the council actually meet and openly discuss the issue and make a decision before we condemn them? -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list