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-424-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1JyX23-00020D-Px
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:56 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EECAE0366;
Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3D0E0366
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB1B67194
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.754
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.754 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.314, BAYES_50=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 dgkeXOuRPu4I for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>;
Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C57566F1A
for <gentoo-project@gentoo.org>; Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1JyX1e-00030l-2C
for gentoo-project@gentoo.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:31 +0000
Received: from 82.153.70.211 ([82.153.70.211])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-project@gentoo.org>; Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:30 +0000
Received: from slong by 82.153.70.211 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-project@gentoo.org>; Tue, 20 May 2008 18:57:30 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
From: Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] (fwd)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 19:53:33 +0100
Message-ID: <g0v6ug$vo$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805191441040.31850@polylepis.inforead.com> <1211216933.5605.32.camel@liasis.inforead.com> <g0sgtd$6c3$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080519195024.3510ba2b@snowcone> <g0spih$81d$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080519220436.60ed51dd@snowcone>
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=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.70.211
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
X-Archives-Salt: cb063cff-cc8d-4b88-b8ed-50355b3db438
X-Archives-Hash: 9dba1b95eec46e6dadd78e4c84e108e4
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