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 TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8720158020 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 19:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 13A36E088B; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 19:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E90EBE088B for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 19:37:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:37:12 -0600 From: John Helmert III To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH 0/6] Some updates for GLEP 39 Message-ID: References: <20221125182032.18483-1-ulm@gentoo.org> 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rO8uURHuKvfCYxGI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221125182032.18483-1-ulm@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 4f1514c7-bc6e-48f8-b87f-277ddfc2af52 X-Archives-Hash: 0e5967b6b953abdf8b6e800c675bf611 --rO8uURHuKvfCYxGI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Could you add references to the relevant council decisions for these? On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 07:20:26PM +0100, Ulrich M=FCller wrote: > We recently saw a proposal by ajak for updating GLEP 39, which would > require an all-developers vote. If we do that, we could use it to get > some other changes in. Some of them are pending since many years; > I have collected them from bugzilla, council meeting logs, and mailing > list postings. >=20 > The patches in this series should be independent of each other (and of > ajak's patch), so each of them can be discussed separately. >=20 > Ulrich M=FCller (6): > glep-0039: Update title > glep-0039: Updating GLEP 39 requires an all-developers vote > glep-0039: Replace leaving council members by next in line > glep-0039: Council members must be developers > glep-0039: A meeting must dissolve if not quorate > glep-0039: Projects need not have a lead >=20 > glep-0039.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >=20 > --=20 > 2.38.1 >=20 >=20 --rO8uURHuKvfCYxGI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCY4ZfaAAKCRCgXq2+aa/J tU8uAQCzB9yq9/ehmiyQnFP7WJF5UOVB3vQ+mETB85SzE5exDAD/XfK5anGg1Xpg LZWBD9YcFMap6uAnHzGG4oh+koqPgQU= =fSHY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rO8uURHuKvfCYxGI--