On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700 > Brian Harring <[email protected]> wrote: > > Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 > > solves all EAPI issues/world hunger. > > > > Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and > > make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is > > trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time. > > GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP > 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55 > was a tie.
A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real issue. And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be voted on, or revisited. That's the thing; the quibbling in details is lovely, as is the repeated rehashing of the same technical matter, over and over, but the path required to get it approved is established. Push it to the council and ask for a vote. They drop it from their plate, push it back to the council again. That route at least has the chance of being productive. Hell, run for council if you're tired of them dropping things. Instead we've got continual sniping over the damned glep instead of taking the proactive steps. Either way, unless I get beat down by the other council members this will be on the next council agenda. If it can be squeezed into the coming monday meeting, I'd prefer it, but it's short notice I realize. ~harring
pgp3ewrMlRb0S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
