On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 19:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is > trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that > somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo. Yeah... because that's > just what the Council wants to do, make Gentoo a steaming pile of rubble > so we can be the supreme rulers of... nothing. Now, if only we can get > all these pesky developers out of the way, we could rule the world! You're right, there is. For the record, though, my feeling isn't anything about being anti-authority, etc. Quite the opposite, in fact, because the current leadership is actually doing and accomplishing things. As I stated in my original email (agreeing with your own view that this isn't that big an issue): what was the hurry to get an announcement/decision made without even a valid alternative in place? In other words, there was a policy "decision" without a clear established way to not violate it (yes, the mplayer/ffmpeg maintainers did whatever it is they did to comply, I know that, but it's not a generalisable solution). So, being that this situation is *not* that big, couldn't it just have waited for all the council members to get together and have opportunity to really propose and establish a viable alternative? If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less of a hub-bub about it. But, come on, this is a 3-package issue.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
