On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording > is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to > spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue > that doesnt exist
Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: Gentoo, for whatever reason, ends up relying upon $sponsor for, say, two thirds of its hardware. $sponsor employs a Gentoo developer who has certain political views that aren't in line with Gentoo policy. Said developer uses his influence as an employee of $sponsor to get $sponsor to say to the Council "either you change policy to say blah within a month or we're going to stop sponsoring you". Now, something like that, were it to happen, would put Gentoo in a very tricky situation. The Council can't easily say no, since losing two thirds of its hardware would effectively halt development. Equally, however, it's not exactly a good idea for the Council to establish a precedent of rushing through policy changes that most people don't want because of outside pressure. *shrug* I guess that's the intention behind the proposal, anyway. If it is, I agree that Christel's wording isn't as clear as it could be... -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
