Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Stuart Herbert
On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I must second this, especially

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Anders Hellgren
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel.

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Ned Ludd
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 19:05 -0500, Mike Doty wrote: All- We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise. Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now. Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Mike Doty
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Doty wrote: All- We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise. Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now. Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Mike Doty
Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific channel. Could someone clear me up on this? Thanks, Donnie Sorry, but I

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 09:58 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: With respects to Gentoo trademarks. That is a foundation issue and would have to be raised with them. Well, if it doesn't follow the guidelines[1], then it is improper usage and would either need to adhere to the guidelines or quit using our

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mike Doty wrote: It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting. This is what I did. I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put forth yesterday. I agree that it is devrel's place to help people

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Mike Doty
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Doty wrote: It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting. This is what I did. I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put forth yesterday. I agree that it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-23 Thread Seemant Kulleen
I've been thinking about Solar's email. I believe Solar is actually very correct in his assessment. I think I'll recant my initial statement about devrel. To KingTaco and the gang: my apologies, you guys did the right thing at the time. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-22 Thread Mike Doty
All- We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise. Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now. Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them. There will be a summary

Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise

2006-06-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mike Doty wrote: All- We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise. Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now. Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted overlays, this will be the defining method of dealing with them.