-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08-08-2010 11:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:47:42 +0530 > Nirbheek Chauhan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead >>> to vote on something else and not upon what was asked. >> >> So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you >> file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues >> from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas >> on how to stubbornly push proposals through? > > When we *did* repeatedly push for GLEP 55 discussion and acceptance, we > were told that we were pushing it too hard and that it was creating too > much noise. When we scale back and only give it a minimum of attention > when related topics come up, we're told we should be pushing over and > over again and protesting. > > Whichever way we go, someone's going to moan. I am glad to see, > however, that the only remaining objections to GLEP 55 are on purely > procedural matters...
I have to agree with Ciaran in that the GLEP55 supporters did repeatedly push for its support and that it was a previous Council that didn't got a vote out about it and left it in "the limbo". At the time, quite a few Gentoo Developers got upset about how many times GLEP55 was brought to the council and the amount of traffic it generated in the gentoo-dev ml for months. I agree with Brian that GLEP55 could have been brought to council again by now, but there's nothing preventing the current council members to determine whether the author still wants it to be approved and put it to a vote so that we can set the status of this GLEP. >> There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you >> have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and >> counterproductive. > > GLEP 55 is brought up when it's the appropriate answer to a problem > someone raises. It is no longer being pushed purely on its own, > because when it was pushed on its own there were complaints that it > was being discussed too much. > > As for no interest in getting it approved, that's clearly nonsense as > you know fine well. Past experience has shown that repeatedly asking > for Council discussion on it does absolutely nothing to get it > approved, so we don't do that any more. > >>> It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the >>> responsibility of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at >>> this point. That was already tried several times, and got nowhere. >> >> It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the >> GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He >> made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either >> put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's >> time and let it die. > > Been there, done that, got nowhere. > - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMXpcMAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPf84P/1wOP3VTvpgR6EzTqaH5M18y QLxe89bvM5GTZ12Cdvgxy1c+o74ysRKsSisdxKXyJkyvlfj7DZcyfMEsdacSDH9r pynbG0LrlXx4qy2+IU9CrG0DUIWx6KnqyTMxzKkbK04cDMw2zQb7R5cQIzeAzyO1 RZJKjVGb+L6ob7OUwJyp9TOl/BQaOo95TIEVT0HWzBXsWjqlqasB4tSZHrxPgOvW GzUcN+36cDDjBhXEo7fOIhxBCwlYMAeFLpYb8fovOaEZgrphFczIJeAR5raPSinL 3hV0aupk7Spniir3gY+78gDROn4NByzy/UGtJyi53vaRpy6VqWvOLRGfRISTWGmM wQloPWsTRpTF///HBC8CreqC1AvGi3rM4zwWxA5GBPt0opA4HqDZDk+YurjQNie4 xWRcUNwZAJL7WmwPoH8ssdIsUlYY/KMt1dj2CJ1032AmfJNuzBIIpx+rxXrArisu cs7Pmg7hMaYhTY7rYtlgn4kQ1WVXUsKz1rFVmpMEHVwAnwfSErwuzdLL2JOUxXb1 ZYUIc2g0UPDKam7WkWhm/zlTbs/0/ZhEkEHWPlQnkEveEQ59GcRiH3xl21m993/o uN6yjpMRNBBZ+0owizMjwY9gJjFys8E3z6SZzEK04WY3s0kPjBFZJVkiAFR79X9s 723HNGkHH8iuCGfbr2hb =Cp/0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
