From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD5E1382C5 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 21:24:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F50CE0971; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 21:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from avasout06.plus.net (avasout06.plus.net [212.159.14.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1774E096A for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 21:24:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.6.147] ([212.159.46.162]) by smtp with ESMTP id 4vJXfqHm5y3ji4vJYfkV7l; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:24:00 +0100 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=fL8XI6Se c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:117 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=bLL35kVjdS8QTpXdN4cA:9 a=kurpAYJRJKJgS89d:21 a=IhS7nU4iP26AzsXC:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <871sfxkqo1.fsf@gentoo.org> <1586431.Ed8VsZCBDG@pinacolada> <20180407200126.gwzovzp7phqdwuoc@gentoo.org> <1737579.rekqRW4xsR@pinacolada> <1523135604.801.5.camel@gentoo.org> From: "M. J. Everitt" Openpgp: id=BA266E0525CFAB101523351B4C30334F93C22371 Message-ID: <7171f684-0117-76aa-1603-734986a178dd@iee.org> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:23:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 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 In-Reply-To: <1523135604.801.5.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJ/ml8+ZzcgdomDD9rcjxS9u2nMmeWVLw5265ZjBkCHzgu31czZD1c7ONHDXWjUI/E0PvHhv5XGJuZOG+O4pqg58Nnxz1bTVtrQLKP3Hjkn0X8CBtoBT r2vS4IhSM6m0YFe7/7dAiFTJc5Lt198lFqNetS0OU759T/W4qtmpvoZt3lFnHCeuCu7R8wJ5lB5Brg== X-Archives-Salt: 4f2cf5be-6d59-42e2-b237-989d7b66a7d6 X-Archives-Hash: 8538b32b92e82fbeac6605e5ff99541e On 07/04/18 22:13, Michał Górny wrote: > It's not like he was the first one, and I honestly doubt he's going to > be the last one. This will keep happening as long as ComRel/Council > (i.e. the metastructure part of Gentoo) can't rely on Trustee backing. > > And I'm not talking about Trustees saying they agree with the decisions > or anything like that. All I'm asking for is solidarity. Official > statement such as 'we will respect Council decisions on X as long > as they are legally valid' would be enough. And cutting short all > the suggestions to the contrary. > I would argue a simple statement from the Foundation stating that its a matter that the Council deals with, and something they don't have to comment on, is more than sufficient, imho. If there is a legal implication, that is something the Council should be responsible for bringing to the Foundation's attention... surely?