[gentoo-project] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] (fwd)

[Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I do believe I addressed all your nonsense before you even posted it.
> Now please don't do it again. I'm going to be ignoring anything further
> along those lines.
> 
No you just focussed on the aside at the end, understandably (while avoiding
the point that, as ever, you expect to use the Gentoo ebuild tree.) The
points I was making:
>> A Council that simultaneously says
>> "yes, we were behind musikc's actions" and "no, it was solely musikc's
>> decision"? That's a lot like the old days.
>> 
> Saying it's someone's call and that you support them in making that 
> decision strikes me as the chain-of-command in operation.

Would you care to comment on that? It is perfectly possible to endorse a
decision made by someone else, while having played no part in the
decision-making process. It's called delegation.

> And I note you're not saying that you think the Council have been slacking
> in the way you outlined in your earlier post as the motivation for this
> policy.

Which is still the case: you're not saying the current Council are slackers.
If you feel they are, please explain how, since they seem to have kept up
with far more meetings than you outlined in your earlier post as being the
bad old days.

Nor was this meeting announced anywhere apart from at the tail end of
another long meeting, and in the summary of said, which understandably
attendees don't usually read.

I for one would much rather see the Council get on with discussing the
devrel issue, than wasting a large amount of scarce time and manpower on an
election. They're not slacking, they messed up: big deal; life's messy
sometimes.


-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list