Danny van Dyk wrote: > Please have a look at the council's meeting log. They said: > a) the changes had been minor and exactly what the changes they wanted > in in the first meeting.
Minor? What you're asking for will cause a lot of administrative nightmare for infra to manage those subdomain addresses among other things. I would have preferred that the people involved with this could have directly asked infra if this would work for us. That's a simple request that I did not see from these folks. > b) they stated that this is the first and the last time that a GLEP will > be voted on if that hasn't been discussed sufficiently long enough on -dev Good, so lets please fix this current GLEP before we implement it. I don't like the answer of "they voted on it, so do it". To me, they voted upon it without following their new mandate on discussion of GLEPs before the meeting. The whole point of GLEPs is discussion to make sure we don't make mistakes, especially if revisions were made. Just because it follows the mandates of what the council wanted doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed again on -dev. I trust the council's decisions and commonsense, but there still needs to be input from the masses to ensure details are worked out BEFORE they are voted upon. Simply saying "we'll have a subdomain for new email addresses" without asking infra about it first negates the vote in my eyes because we weren't properly involved in the discussion process which was skipped for the revision. We're the ones that will be put on the task to implement it, yet never got any direct input from the people who wrote this GLEP. > c) that new limitations for a vote are: send (revised) glep to > gentoo-dev (at least) 14 days before the next council meeting, ask (at > least) 7 days before the meeting for vote. (For this you can also read > seemants mail announcing the availability of the logs) Great, so lets negate the vote and do the right thing for this current GLEP. I don't see the point of letting this one pass by especially since the GLEP folks even said themselves they could wait. All I'm after is doing this the right way instead of shoving it under a table and just forcing the issue. I would prefer this be corrected as stated above with proper discussion instead of saying that its already be decided on so do it. Can some of the council members please comment on this? I'm curious their thoughts on this. Maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree, I just see this as a terrible miscommunication between the GLEP authors, the council, and infra. The council and GLEP authors were in line, but weren't in line with infra. I would just like the vote to be reconsidered or postponed until we properly come up with a logistical solution that will work for infra. -- 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
