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 <gentoo-project+bounces-356-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1JxW3Z-0006lQ-D8
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 May 2008 23:43:17 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28419E01D5;
Sat, 17 May 2008 23:43:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1285E01D5
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 17 May 2008 23:43:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC2566E3F
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 17 May 2008 23:43:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: -1.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.724 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.875,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id EiZVv7n2dYSp for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>;
Sat, 17 May 2008 23:43:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.176])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB9C65AD3
for <gentoo-project@gentoo.org>; Sat, 17 May 2008 23:43:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d32so1093234pye.34
for <gentoo-project@gentoo.org>; Sat, 17 May 2008 16:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
bh=vYRcHhKCPHnG0VaQ24ABASqxCjYchrWu8q64VeCoztQ=;
b=jnbZ9PKEeK17mgO7a+g72ZCAlo9PSWGcF3Dd49v99hSLLXvDvnTFuOIL7r5L4mJhICf/AWQf9hKunZLOaFPSE16If4HyHA7sMU+Py2IGDIm7ZXxOLOV9p9mpgMg6JTVxIAmHJs73hAMMGWxRY6pG/pFeAQw9jBUKoo0iojtaGW0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
b=pYz2kqb3OmgAM92OwGoVfCxropYQgFAr7drD9I/lrRRX+jaekABY7o2OE8P+uv4CXPM1uvJ8/UaovB0yAXhenID690MLeI2pzuxBQCvPH8O3yLL0Qda7fie1UCykLIDBCqTRosE2MZpEcGwBCtc1oWh5I8RnMRR6Ss5u28lWswY=
Received: by 10.115.55.1 with SMTP id h1mr5536126wak.216.1211067792900;
Sat, 17 May 2008 16:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.180.13 with HTTP; Sat, 17 May 2008 16:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7c612fc60805171643l2f5bac6avf6e6a96ce1d9b1a5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:43:12 +0200
From: "Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org>
Sender: denis.dupeyron@gmail.com
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]
In-Reply-To: <1211062749.2652.1@spike>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080515204913.GA22285@comet> <1211062749.2652.1@spike>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: e7f75644eef11d2a
X-Archives-Salt: 7576ec5d-4e53-4ac1-9aa3-8051335c6a70
X-Archives-Hash: 0ecb42ee8263cb6575a1f3dd7e9fc439
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> There seems to be almost total apathy to this thread. I expected at
> least as much interest as the thread that announced the three
> expulsions.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see so little interest in this
thread. I think it's good news that our developers have other things
to do than being bothered with this.
One reason is I consider this a minor incident. But the main reason is
that it's up to the council to get themselves out of a situation
they've put themselves in. You can't be one day the body that rules
Gentoo, and go back to those who elected you the next day just because
it's convenient. There's an issue with consistency and credibility
here.
I trust they'll make the right decision, assuming there is a need for
a decision. And if they don't that's no big deal. We'll either vote
for a new council soon or sometime this summer.
Denis.
--
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list