Thierry Carrez wrote: > Lance Albertson wrote: >>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.
I forgot to mention one thing I noticed in the meeting log: 15:10 <@Koon> one question is "should have it been resubmitted to dev for discussion before we vote" 15:10 <@seemant> the latest version of the GLEP document reflects those changes 15:11 <@seemant> yes, what Koon said 15:11 <@Koon> I answer no, since only the mandated changes are in , but YMMV That's assuming that the changes had been properly asked by infra if the implementation would work. Things that look good on paper don't necessarily work well in practice. I was hoping the postponement of the vote would allow infra to voice its concerns about the new revised GLEP. This did not happen, the council assumed that the implementation had be discussed with infra (which the folks for that GLEP had not done), and went ahead and voted upon it. This whole thing is a failure in proper communication. We are all at fault for that (including me). -- 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
