>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Alec Warner wrote: > The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from > going to the council again (decisions are not forever.) > Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is > not allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different > issue ;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why > it was turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist.
Of course, decisions can be reconsidered. However, GLEP 55 was first posted in 2007. We've had five councils since then, and none of these councils has accepted it. Also, this is one of the most controversial GLEPs that we ever had. Even if it solves the technical problem for the package manager, I believe that embedding such metadata information in the filename is misguided. Then the argument that GLEP 55 would be the only solution which doesn't require a waiting period. Instead, we've been discussing it since more than four years now (so it looks like we were not in a hurry, and the urgent matters from 2007 haven't been so urgent, after all). If some of the other less controversial solutions had been implemented in 2008 or 2009, this wouldn't be an issue today. Ulrich
