Thierry Carrez wrote: > Lance Albertson wrote: > > >>Why do you feel bad about delaying their GLEP because of a mistake on >>their part? Its their responsibility to repost the revised GLEP with >>ample time before the meeting so that proper discussion can unfold. You >>shouldn't feel bad for them because you would require them to wait >>another month. > > > Well, there is nowhere policy on how to handle GLEPs that "will be > accepted if the following changes are made". You say it should have been > republished to -dev. We said, "we accept it but next time it should be > published to -dev at least a week before".
I was looking for the revised glep to discuss not the meeting notes from the previous meeting. The GLEP should be the focus of discussion not the meeting notes. >>The subdomain and sharing of an access for r/o cvs access was first >>introduced in the revised version of the GLEP which was sent out the day >>before the vote. > > > In fact it's been introduced 4 days before, on Nov 11. Then on Nov 12, > Homer Parker submitted the revised GLEP to the council agenda. Then, on > Nov 14, realizing some people thought it should have been resubmitted > before, he posted it to -dev. On Nov 15, not one single complain was > made on the subject of the email subdomain. Submitting the idea and actually submitting the revision are two completely different things. Not a single complaint was sent because some of us can't catch up on -dev email within 24 hours. I was actually going to reply to it, but thought that the council would have enough sense to see our concerns about giving the public so little time to discuss would postpone the vote. But I didn't get to that before the vote time because of real life constraints. >>I would have thought that the folks working on the GLEP >>would consider asking infra about the logistics of that solution or that >>even the council would be curious about that question as well. > > > We have an infra team member in the council. And since no infra member > contested the change to have a subdomain that was required in _October_, > we thought (obviously by mistake) that it was OK for them. Our mistake > was to suppose at least one infra member would read council meeting > summaries. >From the meeting log: 15:14 <@solar> He posted to the list that this topic could be postponed. 15:14 <@SwifT> I wouldn't ask for postponal, for me the GLEP's issues have been addressed and taken care of [...] 15:23 <@solar> If this is not being postponed on the topic of glep41 as said on the mailing list then I'm going with a no on this topic. So far what I've seen of AT's and the existing AT lead for x86@ has not been very encouraging. thus I dont think it is worth it to put the extra workload on infra. 15:24 <@vapier> and if it were postponed, what would change your mind ? [...] 15:27 <@Koon> anyway, he has the right to vote no, anyone reverting his vote to follow solar ? 15:27 <@solar> the majority of you have voted yes so it still will pass. I'm fine with that. So, infra's 'member' on the council clearly was trying to protect our interests and postponing the vote until we had a clear voice on the matter. I made [1] my concerns about the topic the day before the vote. I didn't have enough time to go through the GLEP and come back with specifics. I was hoping that the decision would be postponed so I could voice my concerns then. [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113199543120777&w=2 >>>I won't stand (mostly) alone defending the Council handling of the >>>problem, we were just trying to find the most acceptable solution, which >>>is what we were elected for. Let the vocal minority reverse that >>>decision, I no longer care. >> >>No longer caring about a decision you made? I certainly hope not. > > > No longer caring enough to try to improve the way Gentoo works. I tried, > and it's not worth it. I am like two feet from the exit door, and prefer > not to comment anymore on the subject, to calm down and avoid definitive > decisions I would regret. I'm sorry to hear that. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
