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 D77A5138E66 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:12:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72EA0E0A62; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:12:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f176.google.com (mail-vc0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE866E0A5A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id la4so6397152vcb.21 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:12:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0KhAzri3Daz19PCAjGfKiCgY3X/TtnJNOd6JWeqC8BQ=; b=aDuHWndSc9+meDAvvJxtMOyjsvKsFO+HhB3nk1tqyTNBK/m31Laf0LPRYT2a7MJeor hsTOG5mWEMfHDXPgyvU3YiMRBWyNH4/MeZsv59nXZQWPJYWiftGLzsU1hto8tp2OXAwC /8tB41YtatZsB8+//qnAqaGr+NNB3rSi25ghGUt3Q7OYZ5w4MyRQWKTSzhJ7sYvn+F14 b/lyigQN6zwtDGRzAyyAc2YsmMkYWtejkRFHKw/g5FG8P1H/nDPb6JCy0FUSruG4kTy+ V3dg76o3J7+lxJE1KOi3pHvIUa+9FDGYo3awcG7RDKGRmh8Y9rOsHx/rJUNFL1ZR3fpg oDHQ== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.255.233 with SMTP id at9mr53084ved.20.1393287165844; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:12:45 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.254.198 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:12:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <530BBD0D.50808@gentoo.org> References: <201402101545.39578.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <53069A66.2090907@gentoo.org> <20140221034746.GF8819@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> <530B775E.3000006@gentoo.org> <20140224195930.721c7446@gentoo.org> <530BBD0D.50808@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:12:45 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8cw9SvBV5_sEox7JL7sDz03jE9k Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-02-25 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b9860e88-006e-4b7c-85ed-c2f01d3acea2 X-Archives-Hash: f0ca237db776ab9e43f7e5c237686bbd On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > The gtk flag naming problem is not serious in the sense that it will > break user systems. Additionally, it has been known and discussed for a > long time. Establishing a gtk USE flag policy did not become suddenly so > urgent that next council meeting was too far in the future. Just tossing this out there, but a compromise might be to encourage QA to make non-urgent policy changes effective after a period of time (~30 days). That would allow them time to make revisions if they feel it necessary in light of comments (but would not obligate them to do so), and it would give the council time to take action if necessary (but QA policies would not require explicit council confirmation). Whether any particular policy change warrants the delay vs taking effect immediately could be at their discretion. Rich