From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33B613877A for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F090E0B71; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6BB5E0B70 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (unknown [128.199.245.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B70F433F8DC for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <539C8734.7020509@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:36 +0000 From: hasufell 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council 2014 / 2015 election References: <539BD2E2.7030803@gentoo.org> <539C2FE9.70008@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0e3f25e1-5c35-4c2c-af53-c602bd9bc38e X-Archives-Hash: 6265768f697abcc507b34faaaac71987 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, hasufell wrote: > >> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto: >>> * Only Gentoo developers may be nominated >> >> GLEP 39 doesn't actually say this. Where does this requirement come from? > > Besides the points already made by Roy and Seemant, I was able to trace > that requirement all the way back to the 2006 election[1]. > > [1] - > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_aa073f4053fdeffde9f3e4c404a89c6a.xml > > Ok, thanks. Could we maybe fix the wording of the GLEP so this does not come up again?