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 C4546139085 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 02:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E2ACE0C51; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 02:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ua0-x22f.google.com (mail-ua0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32A1EE0C4B for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 02:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 96so61217190uaq.3 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:18:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Scb+ztprGsWqdf3iu03ujy4sqjJ8/sf9euS9e0eCn5I=; b=vEvV4/Uc02lE4wv0rIXnQZLXCUypiROgT5lElWrBXn0dyVvfpWpTijHHvSlEGY1+7S uRDBRCo34cJ+TXOk5wQ3qc2dqyCHM5gBW5uw39joijhWNMFvXlmsZ0WcTEdNafzpEXJ/ itTBmqk/xROW09OeAIE4O94VyHfmGp33pU7LRA05q8v2Tyy3dkDEYDaziiu5q5Rjtogj KW6x4POQbJzJ0fzVu//c8OVt6+G0W1Lj/U18QgugONk/7TzGmZM9OzSNZjx1oRLTG1qW tD+fwPuKx++tTSr0kkpziBohHPbOlMILmkEko4SbKA1uN4v5HTqsCvyhCQFfULycZT5u TCFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Scb+ztprGsWqdf3iu03ujy4sqjJ8/sf9euS9e0eCn5I=; b=i1J1UO7UdphDlDSaNv1UhbR3+AdbENnfPXMT1jWsgVeLObdEgk8eiRxViy2WABnZHp +LsGAIOFI2kh9P3aDPyGR6oMReRUvxlK1xjFsw4ke5GCK5vjRyjvTUKfAWjSdNGOlhu/ UGfNY6JwcYJH6B30jPR9xLrZS/HUOEDwsQ1//T10SXQPEaRpQA+gbHDpaa1R0UOIlIoT qFcsuVKfgpWlF57r9waY8zVXNP2Fj1lAGqRtj3xD1KLCZUiT5/yXxyVNiIIAB2FUca2+ Amnq4w7IP6tJzp7V0OkxhPMqcYFl4NfDwhkMQIOBiUEIfaoIAe5VD6kXK9lPBelYAmPK cxzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI5INr4OFwVR93fL8QeZIke1Kd8kw29mMX793PQ6DSlyWWrY/eVthlusU22Q7yHIVMElYszs4WHPV87kAN9 X-Received: by 10.176.23.89 with SMTP id k25mr11913708uaf.49.1484446718107; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:18:38 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.159.52.146 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:17:57 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Freed Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 21:17:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 6aebeaef-132b-4847-a211-42a7d9af26c8 X-Archives-Hash: 4b721087bcaea45a1c3e09997309cd38 GLEP 39 currently states that "[A project] may have one or many leads" (Specification section, first list, last item). I believe (and a few others agree) that this language is ambiguous, Some projects have interpreted this language to mean that a project may have no lead, while others believe the language is to be interpreted as meaning that projects must have at least one lead. Therefore, I request that the Council clarify the language of GLEP 39 to remove this ambiguity. I offer up the following choices as possible replacements (though feel free to come up with your own): "It must have at least one lead, and may have many leads. The leads are selected by the members of the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time." OR (if the Council wishes to allow no lead as an option) "It may have no lead, one lead, or many leads, and the leads are selected by the members of the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time." (The slight change in wording in otherwise unaffected parts is to avoid repetitive use of "and" in one sentence.) The reason for the ambiguity in the first place is that the English language allows you to apply the "may" to the collective "one or many leads," which would make any lead optional. Others consider it to just be a choice between "one lead" and "many leads," which is also a valid interpretation. I believe that the original intention was that every project would have a lead (indeed, in GLEP 4, which GLEP 39 replaced, every project had a manager, which is the equivalent), but I don't speak for the authors of GLEP 39. It is my personal opinion that every project should have a lead. The lead serves to resolve disputes among project members, coordinate project effort, and be the point of contact between the project and the rest of Gentoo, all on an as-needed basis. -Doug dwfreed