On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 08:27 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
The current metastructure (as documented in GLEP 39) is a little
unusual; it's a proposal that was voted in by all Gentoo developers.
As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to
change/override/replace the rules in
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 08:27 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
(As a second principle, if GLEP 39 is amended, wouldn't it be better
to publish a new GLEP to superceed it, rather than revise the existing
GLEP?)
Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow
something like
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:27:13 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to
| change/override/replace the rules in GLEP 39 w/out putting it to a
| vote of all Gentoo developers?
The Council has already done so, with the addition of
Hi Chris,
On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let's make it simpler, then. Does it say anywhere in GLEP 39 that
the elected Council cannot change it? Does it limit the council's
powers in any way?
No, it does not. That's why I've asked for a discussion of this as
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Realize that the new council is trying to both become the leaders of
Gentoo that so many seem to want, yet also have to balance not
overstepping the bounds some people think we need. We honestly do need
everyone's opinions on these things, so thank you for posing yours.
On 10/25/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Council has already done so, with the addition of the final bullet
point in Specification list B.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:17 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow
something like this. Would we post something like GLEP 39a, as an
amendment to GLEP 39, or would we have
Hi Chris,
On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the likely best way would be to do something like:
[snip]
Yeah, that works for me.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| (Incidentally, I apologize for missing the meeting. I was in
| intensely boring radiation safety training.)
Uh, isn't boring a good thing when it comes to things involving
radiation?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Wed Oct 25 2006, 11:17:09AM CDT]
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| (Incidentally, I apologize for missing the meeting. I was in
| intensely boring radiation safety training.)
Uh, isn't boring a good thing when it comes to
i just noticed mx2.gentoo.org isnt responding on port 25, shouldnt it be? defeats the purpose of backup MX if its not respond :)CpuID.On 10/26/06,
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Wed Oct 25 2006, 11:17:09AM CDT] On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 08:17, Stuart Herbert wrote:
I think it'd be common sense to post -r1, -r2 etc, and extend the XML
syntax so that we could easily indicate which sentences had been
changed.
well each GLEP itself has a version number ... we could just bump it and
expect people to
12 matches
Mail list logo
