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 3C3091389E2 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01CB4E09DC; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:25:55 +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 68D7CE09C0 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:25:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (tor-exit-node.nip.su [93.174.93.63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84457340597 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:25:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54A2B5EA.1010403@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:25:46 +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] Council meeting 2015-01-13: call for agenda items References: <201412271334.34252.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <549FECF3.2090101@gentoo.org> <54A1ACCD.6000907@gentoo.org> <54A23154.8010007@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <54A23154.8010007@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 7858785c-308a-42d8-a4d0-cedfe69eef1f X-Archives-Hash: 24e0e50bc39d1faba0a67b50d54217d6 Dean Stephens: > On 12/29/14 15:06, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I'll certainly agree that not everything needs a formal project. >> However, if a project wants to have authority/autonomy beyond >> anything-goes, then it should welcome members and elect a lead >> regularly. >> > There is at least a defensible argument to be made that being able to > reject applicants is more important to being able to maintain a coherent > project than the often indicated duty to accept anyone who shows interest. > What about projects that don't even reject, but rather ignore devs/contributors? We tell them to elect a new lead, so we don't have to deal with the people who screwed up, but can say "here, they formally are a functional project according to a random glep... problem solved".