-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Corey Shields schrieb: | On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: | |>No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and >>taken |>to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the |>council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest >>meeting, |>it was asked that this GLEP be voted upon again. At this point, the |>revised version had yet to be shown on -dev for discussion. It wasn't |>until a day before the vote that it was sent to -dev for discussion. |> |>I just wanted to get the facts straight :-) (at least from how I >>know). | | | Ahh, ok thanks for clearing that up. | | Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the | council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then | push it | through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics. Oh please Corey... Now you sound like a pissed kid.
Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said: a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted in in the first meeting. b) they stated that this is the first and the last time that a GLEP will be voted on if that hasn't been discussed sufficiently long enough on -dev c) that new limitations for a vote are: send (revised) glep to gentoo-dev (at least) 14 days before the next council meeting, ask (at least) 7 days before the meeting for vote. (For this you can also read seemants mail announcing the availability of the logs) Danny - -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDf5OjaVNL8NrtU6IRAhzLAJ9Bi1xUcRj7kKE2MWaP8NbceOxuqACcDOy3 t+G1qlkXwKytmLz4Lt/Rox8= =PeVH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
